From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 00:35:46 +0800
To: Bill Frantz <frantz@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Photo ID is not needed for key signings....
In-Reply-To: <v03007874afc71e205651@[207.94.249.152]>
Message-ID: <199706131613.LAA12353@mailhub.amaranth.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <v03007874afc71e205651@[207.94.249.152]>, on 06/13/97 
   at 11:00 AM, Bill Frantz <frantz@netcom.com> said:

>At 10:33 PM -0700 6/12/97, William H. Geiger III wrote:
>>In <v0300786dafc68637a08c@[207.94.249.152]>, on 06/12/97
>>   at 10:14 PM, Bill Frantz <frantz@netcom.com> said:
>>>If you have a version of the key with no signatures, then you can change
>>>the data field and re-sign with the associated secret key.  Since the
>>>data field has changed, you properly need to have others re-verify the
>>>validity of the binding.
>>
>>I don't think that any changes that he would make to his key would need
>>re-verification provided that he signed those changes. Take the following
>>scenario:
>>
>>John Doe creates a key and signs it:
>>
>>pub 2048/FFFFFFFF 01/01/90 John Doe
>>sig                        John Doe (0xFFFFFFFF)
>>
>>Now 3 other people verify that the key does belong to John Doe and sign
>>the key:
>>
>>pub 2048/FFFFFFFF 01/01/90 John Doe john.doe@anonymous.com
>>sig                        John Doe   (0xFFFFFFFF)
>>sig                        Mary Jane  (0xAAAAAAAA)
>>sig                        Tom Thumb  (0x11111111)
>>sig                        Tiny Tim   (0xCCCCCCCC)
>>
>>Now John adds an aka to his key and signs it.
>>
>>pub 2048/FFFFFFFF 01/01/90 John Doe john.doe@anonymous.com
>>sig                        John Doe   (0xFFFFFFFF)
>>sig                        Mary Jane  (0xAAAAAAAA)
>>sig                        Tom Thumb  (0x11111111)
>>sig                        Tiny Tim   (0xCCCCCCCC)
>>aka                        John Doe john.doe@who-is-it.com
>>sig                        John Doe   (0xFFFFFFFF)
>>
>>Since John Doe is the only one who could sign the key with the new aka one
>>can assume that the aka is as valid as the original userid.

>So if John Doe wants to be known as "president@whitehouse.gov" or "Tim
>May <tcmay@got.net>" all he has to do is change the field, and upload the
>changed key to the key servers, and all the signatures should remain
>good?

Well remember that John Doe is only adding an AKA to his key not deleteing
the old userid and replacing it with a new one. This is very important.

pub 2048/FFFFFFFF 01/01/90 John Doe john.doe@anonymous.com
sig                        John Doe   (0xFFFFFFFF)
sig                        Mary Jane  (0xAAAAAAAA)
sig                        Tom Thumb  (0x11111111)
sig                        Tiny Tim   (0xCCCCCCCC)
aka                        John Doe president@whitehouse.gov
sig                        John Doe   (0xFFFFFFFF)


If he were to remove the old userid and replace it with a new one you
would have:

pub 2048/FFFFFFFF 01/01/90 John Doe president@whithouse.gov
sig                        John Doe   (0xFFFFFFFF)

without any autheticating signatures.

The first case all we have is a change of address while in the second we
have a change of identity.



- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBM6FypY9Co1n+aLhhAQEa6QP9EqFGKkAddZMmNFt6hcU8VbIrcqN5toia
vUXHsUjL+3BPhddyGc0qU2q8GqsBEvqklPYFGfT1nYAI8/v4J1Qd81gOLvxEvnrZ
FUeFersILXJBQ1VYHhvhUoTKT3CyDg1PbrwYPIlyksEYbFSv+anxIywQGF58XXRh
VtonV7HFyiU=
=wy43
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----