[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: I am still on the keyring. With my old key.

Scripsit Anand Kumria <wildfire@progsoc.uts.edu.au>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 02:18:02AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:

>> If somebody designs and implements (after a suitable architectural
>> review) some software to support distributed keyring maintenance in a
>> secure, auditable way, it is likely that calls for adding more people
>> to the task would be considered more seriously.

> This is an interesting technical position but one that I think is
> incorrect.

On the contrary, you seem to be focusing on the _easy_ part of the
problem (which rules to use when taking the decision). The _hard_
part is to _implement_ the decision in a secure way once the rules
determine that the keyring should be updated.

> As I have indicated above, I do not believe the role of keyring-maint is
> to make *any* decision but to act upon the instructions of other parts
> of Debian (QA, DAM, tech-ctte, DPL(s), DDs via GR).

The core of the problem is not decision-making.

> Ideally the role of keyring-maint can be useful performed by a script

Strong disagreement. A function as sensitive and fundamental as
maintaining the authoritative _master copy_ of the Debian keyring
should not be left entirely to an unattended script. There must be
real people in the loop who can monitor the changes for unusual

> but since the set of entities who could instruct the keyring-maint is
> large it would probably make sense to have a number of humans fronting
> that script.

Producing some software that *can* be fronted for by more than one
human without introducing unacceptable security risks is the problem
I'm pointing to.

Henning Makholm          "*Tak* for de ord. *Nu* vinker nobelprisen forude."

Reply to: