On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 22:46, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > No it isn't. For it to be non-repudiable, you'd have to demonstrate that > > the key has not been compromised; that the developer knew what he was > > signing (as opposed to a trojaned gpg telling him one thing while doing > > another); etc. Proving those is quite impossible --- especially if he > > doesn't want you to: He can always compromise his own key, on purpose. > > If a package is compromised we can proof that the DD of the package > either is malicious or incompetent. Two good reasons to exclude > packages signed by him in the future. :) Would you care to send that to <firstname.lastname@example.org>, perhaps?
Description: This is a digitally signed message part