Secrecy and user trust

[Ed Greshko]

Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
> The hypothetical scenario being discussed is that you have already
> replaced the former (good but now possibly suspect) public key with a
> spurious new one. If that were to happen, you would be in danger of
> accepting trojanned packages signed with this new fake key. My point is
> that you would also *reject* packages signed with the new good key, and
> this would be noticed very quickly (basically the next time you did an
> update).
>   
That is an extremely unlikely possibility as you have to generate a key
with the same key id (fingerprint)as the original.  Also, you have to
determine how to trick all users in to replacing the original. 


-- 
Necessity is a mother.