[clug] request for comment: new keysigning protocol

[Kevin Pulo]

On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 09:56:41AM +1000, Nemo Maelstrom Thorx wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 07:46:13AM +1100, steve jenkin did utter:
> 
> > I would go cross-eyed reading a bazillion 'fingerprints' :-(
> 
> I think there would be alot of visual shortcutting through simple
> pattern comparisons. And since 0-9A-F has little in the way of obvious
> O/0 mixups to occur, it shoulnd't be too hard. _especially_ if all are
> printed in the same font/size. :) An argument might be able to be put
> forward to providing ones key on semi-transparent paper for such needs
> in fact. Only if the font sizes were guaranteed to be identical though

Yes, I had thought of putting the key fingerprints onto transparencies
for comparison purposes.  But there are other problems in addition to
having the same font and size.

The main one I can think of is where one letter is a subset of
another, eg. a 0 on the transparency may perfectly cover a C and
appear to be fine.  Similarly E/F and 3/B/8, if the people checking
aren't careful when lining things up.

So you would probably actually need both fingerprints to be on
transparencies, in strongly contrasting colours (including for colour
blind individuals), and then check the fingerprints both ways (with
each on top) against a plain background...  and now it's starting to
get cumbersome again...

Kev.

-- 
.----------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Kevin Pulo                Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. |
| kev at pulo.com.au               _ll l_ng__g_e_ _r_ hi__ly p__d_ct__le. |
| http://www.kev.pulo.com.au/         God casts the die, not the dice. |
`--------------- Linux: The choice of a GNU generation. ---------------'
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/linux/attachments/20100208/2e3499c1/attachment.pgp>