Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-river-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 15358 invoked from network); 12 Oct 2010 14:29:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 12 Oct 2010 14:29:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 79014 invoked by uid 500); 12 Oct 2010 14:29:24 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-river-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 78870 invoked by uid 500); 12 Oct 2010 14:29:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact river-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: river-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list river-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 78856 invoked by uid 99); 12 Oct 2010 14:29:23 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 14:29:23 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.163.196.105] (HELO nyx.xs4all.nl) (83.163.196.105) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 14:29:15 +0000 Received: from macmini.qcg.lan ([192.168.99.5]) by nyx.xs4all.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P5fqZ-0007Ev-1D for river-dev@incubator.apache.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:28:55 +0200 Message-ID: <4CB470A6.1010009@qcg.nl> Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:28:54 +0200 From: Sim IJskes - QCG Organization: Quality Consultancy Group b.v. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.12) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: river-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: PGP References: <201010121625.31200.michal.kleczek@xpro.biz> In-Reply-To: <201010121625.31200.michal.kleczek@xpro.biz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 10/12/2010 04:25 PM, Michal Kleczek wrote: > On Tuesday 12 of October 2010 16:13:14 Sim IJskes - QCG wrote: >> On 10/12/2010 04:10 PM, Michal Kleczek wrote: >>> On Tuesday 12 of October 2010 16:04:41 Sim IJskes - QCG wrote: >>>> On 10/12/2010 03:39 PM, Michal Kleczek wrote: >>>>> Or your code is signed with PGP - but I don't have a PGP verifier >>>>> installed. Is it possible for you to provide me with third party PGP >>>>> verifier code that in turn is signed with a standard X509 certificate? >>>> >>>> Why PGP? The PKI is the same. The CA's signing domain related >>>> certificates are creating the inflexibility. >>> >>> Exactly... Hierarchical CAs are inflexible - that's why PGP (or SPKI) :) >> >> Strange reasoning. I'm my own CA. Whats the problem? > > Your CA certificate is self-signed. How can I trust it? Exactly. PKI is delegation of trust. If you dont trust the CA (or dont want to pay the CA to trust you), it ends here. PKI is no replacement of trust. Gr. Sim