* Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com> [20080904 05:29]:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 10:30 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>> hardest of all find a secure way to provide the public part of the
>> signing key
>
> The whole point about asymmetric encryption is that you don't need a
> secure distribution channel. The worst that can happen is that some fake
> public key gets distributed, which won't match the private key and hence
> will be instantly detectable.
>
NAK - if a fake public key were distributed then packages signed with
the fake key would be matched, allowing full access to install crap in
your machine. And packages signed with any valid redhat key would be
rejected.
The public key really must be distributed in a secure manner.
I am sure the infrastructure team is all ears for a detailed
suggestion on how you believe this should be achieved. And with your
extensive experience in the field - you ought to be able to provide a
detailed plan of action.
It's very easy sitting at the side-line criticising, but actually
*doing* it is much harder.
IMHO - we're at the "put up or shut up" point with the criticism now.
/Anders