3 ms·
This has also been discovered with the Debian project, as I submitted a while ago [1]. The really scary part is the follow-up [2]: > € gpg --search-key samu
by ckastner 10y ago
This has also been discovered with the Debian project, as I submitted a while ago [1].
The really scary part is the follow-up [2]:
> € gpg --search-key samuel.thibault@gnu.org
> ...
> (1) Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org>
> 4096 bit RSA key 7D069EE6, created: 2014-06-16
And it has 55 signatures from 55 colliding keys...
Edit: even the 64-bit fingerprint is probably insufficient, see [3].
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/08/msg00143.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/08/msg00143.html
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/08/msg00144.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/08/msg00144.html
[3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/08/msg00215.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/08/msg00215.html
- tomrod 10y agoWhy is this scary?
- ckastner 10y agoBecause it removes many obvious tells of a deliberate key collision targeting a specific key, and thus is harder to detect. For example, pgp.mit.edu and Enigmail would currently output information for both keys that would be almost identical per 2014-08-05, the day evil32 apparently generated the keys. I say "almost" only because they didn't set the correct timestamps, and apparently did not duplicate all UIDs -- but they easily could have. The diligent PGP user will of course not fall into such a trap, but an inexperienced user easily might, and there are many of them.
- schoen 10y agoThe whole point of this research was to underscore that PGP key acquisition is commonly broken. You could choose to blame PGP software, users, documentation, or the web-of-trust model itself, but in any case what a significantly number of people commonly do is unsafe.