3 ms·

Aaaand we found another two. One of which belongs to a GNU dev with some public presence... Still think it was 'cosmic rays' on SKS's machines? Do cosmic rays

• diafygi 11y ago
  Can you please disclose the key ids? Are they the same instances of inserting subkey under someone's public key with an invalid self-signature[1]? If so, it seems that this attack is exploiting the fact that the sks-keyserver pool doesn't verify self-signatures and some non-gpg client might not verify self-signatures either (dunno which one, though). [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9561407 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9561407
• wfn 11y ago
  > Still think it was 'cosmic rays' on SKS's machines? Just FYI, this kind of stuff seems to have been done before, with vulnerable keys found: https://eprint.iacr.org/2012/064.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2012/064.pdf (2012), https://factorable.net/ https://factorable.net/ (these two are mentioned and linked to from https://blog.hboeck.de/archives/872-About-the-supposed-factoring-of-a-4096-bit-RSA-key.html https://blog.hboeck.de/archives/872-About-the-supposed-facto...) And (off-topic) if you are wondering why some of your recent comments are being downvoted so much, it's probably because of the tone (saying things such as "good job repeating my research" when work of the same kind with results of the same kind had been done before (see above.)) Still an interesting result and curious re. SKS servers (not) checking subkeys etc... also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9562170 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9562170