Re: MDCs and PGP 6.5.1b15

["William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <99May17.201900edt.42114@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, on 05/17/99 
   at 07:19 PM, Tom Zerucha <tzeruch@xxxxxxxxxx> said:

>I don't know about this particular signature packet or extension, but I
>would hope you aren't violating any part of the existing spec with this
>addition.

I had done a detailed analysis of this key for the PGP-Keyserver Operators
group this weekend (I can post here if desired). IMHO the signature looks
foobared and violates several aspects of RFC 2440. I don't mind creating a
method to convert X.509 stuff to OpenPGP, I don't even mind the X.509
certs being encapsulated in a hashed subpacket. But if we are going to do
all this the end result should be a valid OpenPGP Key that contains the
following 3 elements:

Valid OpenPGP Public Key Packet
Valid OpenPGP UserID Packet
Valid OpenPGP SelfSignature

I don't think that the X.509 packet alone should qualify as a valid
SelfSignature but instead during the conversion process a OpenPGP
SelfSignature should be generated. Of course this would require that a
corresponding OpenPGP secret key be generated during the conversion
process. Otherwise I really don't see the point of going through the
conversion process at all.


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://www.openpgp.net
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 5.0 at: http://www.openpgp.net/pgp.html
Talk About PGP on IRC EFNet Channel: #pgp Nick: whgiii

Hi Jeff!! :)
---------------------------------------------------------------