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

Re: wanted: educate us please on key dongles

Am 2017-08-30 14:45, schrieb Marc Haber:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 01:52:54PM +0200, Christian Seiler wrote:
Well, you could create a completely separate key pair (with a separate
master key) for Debian purposes only.

That would double the effort of obtaining signatures and also double the
burden on my signers. Doesnt scale.

Meh. It's not uncommon for people to have multiple keys that they
ask signatures for during keysigning parties. But yeah, that this
is more work is the obvious downside of this approach.

> People keep mentioning to store the private key on a LUKS-encrypted
> device. Why? Is the private key encryption that happens inside GnuPG
> itself when you protect your private key with a passphrase not
> sufficient?

Defense in depth. First of all, it's not immediately clear that the
media I keep my private key on is actually the one that contains my
private key (_all_ external media I have at home is LUKS encrypted,
except for a couple of USB sticks I use to share data with other

That sounds like security-by-obscurity.

To be fair: I encrypt all of my external media out of principle
anyway, I didn't just do this for my GPG key.

Furthermore, security by obscurity is rightfully frowned upon
because many people use it as their _only_ security strategy. But
here it's just use as an additional barrier to something that
actually has actual security properties.

However, you _could_ achieve that if you export the private key
manually and accidentally upload that via the web interface that
some keyservers provide. ;-) They'll probably reject the upload
(because it's not a public key), but who knows where that'll be

yes, but that's truely advanced stupidity. I hope that I am not capable
of that.

I didn't mean to imply that you were. ;-)

I was just saying that's kind of the only kind of scenario I could
come up with where someone could indeed upload a private key to a
keyserver by accident.


Reply to: