3 ms·

> if a key owner changes, the pgp key mutates. How does Keybase address this problem completely? If an attacker gains possession of a key, they don’t have to c

> if a key owner changes, the pgp key mutates. How does Keybase address this problem completely? If an attacker gains possession of a key, they don’t have to change ownership, they just assume the role of that user. NB: I know they could feasibly only do this once before the key is considered burned by detection from the original user, so I’m somewhat lost here. Presumably you could mean that revocation of a known stolen key would be easy to point to, but any PKI can handle this. Edit: I’m aware of Keybase itself doing per-device salts, but under a sophisticated attack, I don’t see a workaround here unless they’re doing some multi-party signing process with authorization against the Keybase server who acts as a second party, but even then, a sophisticated attacker who has control of the user’s machine impersonating someone would still be able to circumvent this.

exabrial 5y ago
If you have a PGP key bound to your email: yeehaw@woot.com and you change the email in the key to: haha@yougotserved.com it produces a definitive hash change, while the underlying key material doesn't change. Contrast that to an ssh key, which has no bound metadata. And to your point, both systems in isolation are useless. But the first, combined with proofs and a distribution point like keybase, form a complete system. The second however, ALWAYS relies on a trusted party not doing bad things.
- cassonmars 5y ago
  Right, I guess what I was more critical of wasn’t a hash confirmation of associated data — it’s more the trivial bypass of this when the key is compromised in the first place. Theoretically, a user doesn’t export their key, or if they do, it’s under a tightly controlled manner which limits surface area for exposure to only the source and destination. So in this scenario, the only way a private key is exposed is if one of the user’s devices is compromised, in which case the promise of associated data is meaningless.

exabrial 5y ago

If you have a PGP key bound to your email: yeehaw@woot.com and you change the email in the key to: haha@yougotserved.com it produces a definitive hash change, while the underlying key material doesn't change. Contrast that to an ssh key, which has no bound metadata. And to your point, both systems in isolation are useless. But the first, combined with proofs and a distribution point like keybase, form a complete system. The second however, ALWAYS relies on a trusted party not doing bad things.

cassonmars 5y ago
Right, I guess what I was more critical of wasn’t a hash confirmation of associated data — it’s more the trivial bypass of this when the key is compromised in the first place. Theoretically, a user doesn’t export their key, or if they do, it’s under a tightly controlled manner which limits surface area for exposure to only the source and destination. So in this scenario, the only way a private key is exposed is if one of the user’s devices is compromised, in which case the promise of associated data is meaningless.