cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1995-02-10 - Re: why pgp sucks

Header Data

From: Derek Atkins <warlord@MIT.EDU>
To: Greg Morgan <mac5tgm@hibbs.vcu.edu>
Message Hash: d2c2a30b1937da420ce4468968db0dd6701c3d2b75a2fcaa6cc89f53d86dd903
Message ID: <9502102110.AA07984@josquin.media.mit.edu>
Reply To: <9502102047.AA25106@hibbs.vcu.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1995-02-10 21:10:58 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 13:10:58 PST

Raw message

From: Derek Atkins <warlord@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 13:10:58 PST
To: Greg Morgan <mac5tgm@hibbs.vcu.edu>
Subject: Re: why pgp sucks
In-Reply-To: <9502102047.AA25106@hibbs.vcu.edu>
Message-ID: <9502102110.AA07984@josquin.media.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> Doesn't having some kind of central record of keys go against
> the principle of PGP?  Unless you're just talking about having
> a name attached to each key, but not exactly a DNS for key
> id's...  I'll admit I'm a little confused.

Not at all.

The point is to have a centralized, distributed key distribution
mechanism, similar in concept to the PGP Public Keyservers, but which
scale much much better.  The concept is similar to a DNS of PGP keys
(think of the DNS model, not the DNS implementation) where you have
keys distributed based upon site.  For example, MIT could server MIT's
keys, and CMU would server CMU's keys.

This does not go against PGP in any way.  In fact, it augments PGP
wonderfully.  How else would we be able to have a world-wide white
pages of PGP Public Keys?

-derek

Thread