From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD8F11384B4 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 15:16:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 92D6C21C01B; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 15:15:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A87EA21C003 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 15:15:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [151.217.220.251] (unknown [151.217.220.251]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: k_f) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 69A103406DD for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 15:15:52 +0000 (UTC) From: Kristian Fiskerstrand Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 (1.0) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New project: Crypto Message-Id: <69B5E468-B649-42E1-A0AE-02719A997689@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 16:15:47 +0100 References: <5655EBF0.9000804@gentoo.org> <56560A11.8030700@gentoo.org> <56561851.2020900@gentoo.org> <20151228014934.e94250f4670cde139dbc7867@gentoo.org> <21A8380F-6010-4CDD-8DEF-02FA11217D21@gentoo.org> <20151228145813.40343a43@symphony.aura-online.co.uk> <9AB9A178-B4A1-4493-A3A4-0B3A855E603F@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <9AB9A178-B4A1-4493-A3A4-0B3A855E603F@gentoo.org> To: "gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org" X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12F69) X-Archives-Salt: 6fdb315d-0291-48a0-9742-1c68757a3c90 X-Archives-Hash: 51d52cfa1d8c0b6ac2ab37e6e9255611 [Sent from my iPad, as it is not a secured device there are no cryptographic= keys on this device, meaning this message is sent without an OpenPGP signat= ure. In general you should *not* rely on any information sent over such an u= nsecure channel, if you find any information controversial or un-expected se= nd a response and request a signed confirmation] > On 28 Dec 2015, at 16:07, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >=20 >=20 > The main issue is key storage, though. For signatures you can use a dedica= ted signing subkey, however you get in problem with encrypted emails as mobi= le devices are not really secure devices and should never have cryptographic= material. What could work in this case is a NFC (or for that matter bluetoo= th, although it needs to be properly paired etc etc) channel with a separate= device with a separate keychain and display so you can verify the request, a= nd never This should read pinentry, the existence of a keyring is implicit to the use= case.. > actually expose private key material to the cellphone. >=20 > In the mean time I just include the notice whenever I don't sign, at least= some people notice it and gives it another thought.