c1/16312dbb5baabb1a0dd771a5860ea8dcb47cce

   1 Return-Path: <pgut001@login01.cs.auckland.ac.nz>\r
   2 X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
   3 Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
   4 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
   5         by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAD39431FB6\r
   6         for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:11:53 -0800 (PST)\r
   7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
   8 X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
   9 X-Spam-Score: -0.7\r
  10 X-Spam-Level: \r
  11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
  12         tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7]\r
  13         autolearn=disabled\r
  14 Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])\r
  15         by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)\r
  16         with ESMTP id izoOcJ2I6LfC for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
  17         Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:11:46 -0800 (PST)\r
  18 Received: from mx2-int.auckland.ac.nz (mx2-int.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.12.41])\r
  19         (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))\r
  20         (No client certificate requested)\r
  21         by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7C02431FB5\r
  22         for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:11:45 -0800 (PST)\r
  23 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;\r
  24         d=auckland.ac.nz; i=pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz;\r
  25         q=dns/txt; s=uoa; t=1295395906; x=1326931906;\r
  26         h=from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:message-id:date;\r
  27         z=From:=20Peter=20Gutmann=20<pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>\r
  28         |To:=20ietf-openpgp@imc.org,=20nagydani@epointsystem.org\r
  29         |Subject:=20Re:=20including=20the=20entire=20fingerprint\r
  30         =20of=20the=20issuer=20in=20an=20OpenPGP=20certification\r
  31         |Cc:=20dkg@fifthhorseman.net,=20notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
  32         |In-Reply-To:=20<4D3564E4.1010203@epointsystem.org>\r
  33         |Message-Id:=20<E1PfLeJ-0002cY-4A@login01.fos.auckland.ac\r
  34         .nz>|Date:=20Wed,=2019=20Jan=202011=2013:11:43=20+1300;\r
  35         bh=ntqTGfQQ7qJId6UnhG6SWZGCvU1kjRdQOe3fJLjkxm4=;\r
  36         b=P4mu8ghuVQ0zNplx9DliJpwJojuVTK66Mfiy3fCIquA/oEY4s9cJn2IL\r
  37         yL6/amBiu85bSi6xaTPGKbO+q8+xtSQty2jcPuRICa/Y9toHj69jxTyqH\r
  38         4aSGU9Ww8zB2szCWMYdMn7wwU1dwz3PN9yut8hTyEB9kh0/2N50Z2o6yx c=;\r
  39 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,341,1291546800"; d="scan'208";a="42824993"\r
  40 X-Ironport-HAT: APP-SERVERS - $RELAYED\r
  41 X-Ironport-Source: 130.216.33.150 - Outgoing - Outgoing\r
  42 Received: from mf1.fos.auckland.ac.nz ([130.216.33.150])\r
  43         by mx2-int.auckland.ac.nz with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA;\r
  44         19 Jan 2011 13:11:43 +1300\r
  45 Received: from login01.fos.auckland.ac.nz ([130.216.34.40])\r
  46         by mf1.fos.auckland.ac.nz with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)\r
  47         (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <pgut001@login01.cs.auckland.ac.nz>)\r
  48         id 1PfLeJ-0005es-Gh; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 13:11:43 +1300\r
  49 Received: from pgut001 by login01.fos.auckland.ac.nz with local (Exim 4.69)\r
  50         (envelope-from <pgut001@login01.cs.auckland.ac.nz>)\r
  51         id 1PfLeJ-0002cY-4A; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 13:11:43 +1300\r
  52 From: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>\r
  53 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org, nagydani@epointsystem.org\r
  54 Subject: Re: including the entire fingerprint of the issuer in an OpenPGP\r
  55         certification\r
  56 In-Reply-To: <4D3564E4.1010203@epointsystem.org>\r
  57 Message-Id: <E1PfLeJ-0002cY-4A@login01.fos.auckland.ac.nz>\r
  58 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 13:11:43 +1300\r
  59 Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
  60 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
  61 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13\r
  62 Precedence: list\r
  63 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
  64         <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
  65 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,\r
  66         <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>\r
  67 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>\r
  68 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
  69 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>\r
  70 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
  71         <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
  72 X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 00:11:53 -0000\r
  73 \r
  74 "Daniel A. Nagy" <nagydani@epointsystem.org> writes:\r
  75 \r
  76 >generating a new key with the same 64-bit key ID as an existing key is on the\r
  77 >very far end of the realm of feasibility.\r
  78 \r
  79 That should be:\r
  80 \r
  81   generating a *secure* new key with the same 64-bit key ID as an existing key\r
  82   is on the very far end of the realm of feasibility.\r
  83 \r
  84 If you don't mind that your key's weak then it's not that much more work than\r
  85 just finding a 64-bit collision.\r
  86 \r
  87 Peter.\r