Re: Red team attacks vs. cracking
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 10:32:15AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> I am actually quite ambivalent about whether I think what he did was
>> wrong; I think to determine that I would need to read carefully what
>> the KSP organizers said. Martin certainly should follow the protocols
>> established, but I would only count "established" as being what is
>> actually written down by the KSP organizers, and not just some kind of
>> general unspoken expectation. (Where can I read about those written
>> protocols, if there are any?)
> From http://debconf6.debconf.org/ksp/ksp-dc6.html:
> " The next step is to verify each participant's identity by checking
> preferably a passport or, alternatively, some other form of government
> issued ID. Please don't show very old, doubtful or easy-to-fake documents as
> people will not sign your key if you do so. "
> I guess that answers the questions you brought up in your e-mail. An ID from
> a political party is *not* a government issued ID and *is* a doubtful
Indeed, but it doesn't sound like he violated the rules. This was
worded as a suggestion, not as a demand. Indeed, notice that the
people who signed the key violated it just as much as he did. Where
is the hue and cry against them?
I still want to know who they are, because it is *their* signatures I
have to start distrusting.