From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Q33Zs-0006pG-6A for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:45:08 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DD4CCE07FC; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:44:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mo-p05-ob.rzone.de (mo-p05-ob.rzone.de [81.169.146.182]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5778CE07AB for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:44:30 +0000 (UTC) X-RZG-AUTH: :IW0NeWCpcPchHrcnS4ebzBgQnKHTmUiSF2JlOcyy/54wX4oRGP6NKj4cDg== X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo05 Received: from pinacolada.localnet ([81.27.171.130]) by post.strato.de (jimi mo42) (RZmta 25.8) with ESMTPA id J0259an2P9aUOz for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:44:29 +0100 (MET) From: "Andreas K. Huettel" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rejecting unsigned commits Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:44:31 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.36-gentoo-r5; KDE/4.6.1; x86_64; ; ) References: <201103250953.19757.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <20110325091100.GA5313@lemongrass.antoszka.pl> In-Reply-To: <20110325091100.GA5313@lemongrass.antoszka.pl> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart92937448.55kZvW2Bf9"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201103251044.37611.dilfridge@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: cb8d6553b28254faea82f1fc58a235ab --nextPart92937448.55kZvW2Bf9 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > * The key should be signed by some central instance for automated > > validity check. > >=20 > > Here things get hairy. How about having recruiter/infra team sign a dev= 's > > key on completion of the recruitment process? Just a first thought... >=20 > I think this is an important requirement however it's quite difficult > to conduct reliably. A normal keysigning process usually requires > knowing one personally (and perhaps verifying fingerprints over a > phone with voice verification), seeing one's ID personally and the > like. This is probably unfeasible in the Gentoo development > environment (I'm not a dev, though, so I'm just guessing). Well, as long as the signed UID is the specific "Gentoo address UID", this= =20 should be no problem, since... * the signature proves the key belongs to the e-mail address, nothing else * the e-mail address is given to the owner of the key during recruitment Meaning nobody is certifying something that he/she does not know already by= =20 definition. Please point out any thinkos... :) =2D-=20 Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer=20 dilfridge@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/ --nextPart92937448.55kZvW2Bf9 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk2MZAUACgkQ3ao2Zwy3NWovLgCgjGAwaWJMnn0m7/lEAwtzKmP1 80EAn39nTRuB55ZECI08mUvV4ML/Ll4f =Dp/j -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart92937448.55kZvW2Bf9--