Re:TrueCrypt suggesting migration to BitLocker?
by r0muald on Thursday May 29, 2014 @05:40AM
(#7815458)
I'm taking the risk of sounding sarcastic, which I don't want to, but:
> Signature is valid, so it's not a defacement.
Under normal circumstances, I would assume the same, but given the exceptional situation and chaos ensued, I think it's not entirely silly to think that this could be a case of http://xkcd.com/538/
That could explain the inconsistency of a hypothetical scenario where the key is compromised by a third-party but the owner doesn't come out. If they are under physical threat, I suspect a lot of the "normal" measures like revocation certificates would be hard/impossible to achieve.
> Signature is valid, so it's not a defacement.
Under normal circumstances, I would assume the same, but given the exceptional situation and chaos ensued, I think it's not entirely silly to think that this could be a case of http://xkcd.com/538/
That could explain the inconsistency of a hypothetical scenario where the key is compromised by a third-party but the owner doesn't come out. If they are under physical threat, I suspect a lot of the "normal" measures like revocation certificates would be hard/impossible to achieve.