3 ms·

The problem I see with PGP is you'll end up with thousands if not millions of keys you need to keep on hand to decrypting everything. Not to mention the web of

The problem I see with PGP is you'll end up with thousands if not millions of keys you need to keep on hand to decrypting everything. Not to mention the web of trust will be massive and navigating will likely start taking very large CPU power if its strictly peer to peer. To avoid this most people will start just trusting larger companies; Google, Facebook, Apple, Mozilla. And only checking their keys, since they will trust that company's key. And these companies will handle signing new websites. Small websites won't care if you personally trust them, they'll only care if one of the 'big companies' trust them. In the end we wind up exactly where we started. Large companies are implicitly trusted by everyone. Sure you may sign your key off to a few dev friends so you can access their test sites, which will make self signing easier. The cost will be mitigated, but in reality nothing will change. Even likely within a 3-4 Browser Generations we'll see non-Company trusted PGP keys get scrapped in all but the more free (as in beer) browsers.

lorddoig 13y ago
I'm not sure this is the likely outcome. There are a lot of people out there savvy enough to not jump on the big company bandwagon - and they would be very vocal about why it's a bad idea too. I don't see your vision becoming a reality for as many as you expect, especially if PGP is brought into our lifestyles a bit more (e.g. email, chat) and the general population begin to understand it - it wouldn't be long before they understood enough to value building their own trust relationships.
- valarauca1 13y ago
  The problem is its not a personal savvy problem, its a mathematics problem. PGP will pick the shortest route. So if you trust google.com, and google.com trusts the site, bing-bang-boom your done. The shortest route will always favor the person with the most keys and the most trust. Who invariably will figure out that he/she can make money getting more keys and more trust. Which lucky for us their are both a finite number of persons and a finite number of keys that will be signed by each key. We end up with a pyramid scheme. Where the more trust and keys you have, the easier it'll be to get more trust and keys. :.:.: The problem is capitalism. In all honestly we'll likely see the PGP network end up in the hands of banks. You want secure access to you online account? Sign each other keys. Now the bank has a 5 million person strong trusted key. They'll sell that trust naturally. I trust most tech companies enough not to instantly monetize the PGP web, but some would. Likely some tech company attempts to monetize it, they get yelled at. They stop. Another does, nothing changes so people accept it as the new norm. The arguments made it allows for faster page loads, easier access. Nobody says a word after a year.
  - saintgimp 13y ago
    I completely agree with the capitalism problem, but the most likely hands to end up holding the web of trust would be the browser makers, not the banks.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - zanny 13y ago
    The difference though is that if we used web of trust / PGP, you still have the choice to divert around exploiters. With PKI, you can't choose the root CAs. Today, Verisign abuses the shit out of their market dominance to price gouge certs, and I have no reason to ever trust that company with anything, they don't give me a reason to, and they almost certainly have their root keys in the pockets of groups like the NSA. So if I don't want to run my WoT through Google, I could choose not to. For the average user they shouldn't care, but I would at least have the choice. Right now there is none.
zurn 13y ago
> Large companies are implicitly trusted by everyone. No. What little trust there is, it comes from people trusting them to be afraid for their own interests. But even then people generally acknowledge that the customer's interest might not always win here. See eg. Linux refusal to use Intel's hardware RNG.
M2Ys4U 13y ago
The difference between the CA system and the WoT system you're describing is that you can revoke your trust in, say, Google yet you'll still be able to validate certificates. With the CA system as it is now, once a CA is trusted, it's effectively trusted FOREVER.

lorddoig 13y ago

I'm not sure this is the likely outcome. There are a lot of people out there savvy enough to not jump on the big company bandwagon - and they would be very vocal about why it's a bad idea too. I don't see your vision becoming a reality for as many as you expect, especially if PGP is brought into our lifestyles a bit more (e.g. email, chat) and the general population begin to understand it - it wouldn't be long before they understood enough to value building their own trust relationships.

valarauca1 13y ago
The problem is its not a personal savvy problem, its a mathematics problem. PGP will pick the shortest route. So if you trust google.com, and google.com trusts the site, bing-bang-boom your done. The shortest route will always favor the person with the most keys and the most trust. Who invariably will figure out that he/she can make money getting more keys and more trust. Which lucky for us their are both a finite number of persons and a finite number of keys that will be signed by each key. We end up with a pyramid scheme. Where the more trust and keys you have, the easier it'll be to get more trust and keys. :.:.: The problem is capitalism. In all honestly we'll likely see the PGP network end up in the hands of banks. You want secure access to you online account? Sign each other keys. Now the bank has a 5 million person strong trusted key. They'll sell that trust naturally. I trust most tech companies enough not to instantly monetize the PGP web, but some would. Likely some tech company attempts to monetize it, they get yelled at. They stop. Another does, nothing changes so people accept it as the new norm. The arguments made it allows for faster page loads, easier access. Nobody says a word after a year.
- saintgimp 13y ago
  I completely agree with the capitalism problem, but the most likely hands to end up holding the web of trust would be the browser makers, not the banks.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- zanny 13y ago
  The difference though is that if we used web of trust / PGP, you still have the choice to divert around exploiters. With PKI, you can't choose the root CAs. Today, Verisign abuses the shit out of their market dominance to price gouge certs, and I have no reason to ever trust that company with anything, they don't give me a reason to, and they almost certainly have their root keys in the pockets of groups like the NSA. So if I don't want to run my WoT through Google, I could choose not to. For the average user they shouldn't care, but I would at least have the choice. Right now there is none.

zurn 13y ago

> Large companies are implicitly trusted by everyone. No. What little trust there is, it comes from people trusting them to be afraid for their own interests. But even then people generally acknowledge that the customer's interest might not always win here. See eg. Linux refusal to use Intel's hardware RNG.

M2Ys4U 13y ago

The difference between the CA system and the WoT system you're describing is that you can revoke your trust in, say, Google yet you'll still be able to validate certificates. With the CA system as it is now, once a CA is trusted, it's effectively trusted FOREVER.