On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 09:40:01PM +0200, Pieter Hintjens wrote: > > Nice, glad we're clear now ;) > > We're not quite finished. There's a confusion (also for me) between > the public key used for encrypting the certificate content, and the > public key provided in the content itself.
Usually you use the public key to encrypt data for the recipient and not to encrypt a certificate. > And we can do verification using a 32-byte value, which is still large > but doable. What about using random art for human key verification: +--[ DSA 1024]----+ | . | | . . | | . o . . | | +.ooo . | | .S+o =... | | o. + o.. | | . . .o.. | | E . ....o | | . ...o | +-----------------+ (See: http://www.dirk-loss.de/sshvis/drunken_bishop.pdf). - Tom -- PGP Key: https://www.daemon.de/txt/tom-pgp-pubkey.txt S/Mime Cert: https://www.daemon.de/txt/tom-smime-cert.pem Bitmessage: BM-2DAcYUx3xByfwbx2bYYxeXgq3zDscez8wC -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
