Secrecy and user trust

[Anders Karlsson]

* Bill Davidsen <davidsen at tmr.com> [20080904 05:29]:
> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>> On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 10:30 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>>> hardest of all find a secure way to provide the public part of the  
>>> signing key
>>
>> The whole point about asymmetric encryption is that you don't need a
>> secure distribution channel. The worst that can happen is that some fake
>> public key gets distributed, which won't match the private key and hence
>> will be instantly detectable.
>>
> NAK - if a fake public key were distributed then packages signed with  
> the fake key would be matched, allowing full access to install crap in  
> your machine. And packages signed with any valid redhat key would be  
> rejected.
>
> The public key really must be distributed in a secure manner.

I am sure the infrastructure team is all ears for a detailed
suggestion on how you believe this should be achieved. And with your
extensive experience in the field - you ought to be able to provide a
detailed plan of action.

It's very easy sitting at the side-line criticising, but actually
*doing* it is much harder. 

IMHO - we're at the "put up or shut up" point with the criticism now.

/Anders