Re: GnuPG Web-of-Trust calculations based on trust-signatures don't add up (T7611)

On Tue 2025-05-06 23:04:40 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Daniel Kahn Gillmor via Gnupg-devel <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>  - I generally expect WoT calculations to be cumulative or additive in
>>    some sense.
>
> I think that may be a fundamental problem.

I should probably have said "potentially corroborative" or something.  I
didn't mean to imply that every additional certification *must* increase
calculated validity, only that i don't expect additional certifications
to *reduce* validity.

In your discussion below, i think you're using the term "trust" to mean
both "calculated validity" (how much do i believe this certificate
belongs to the claimed User ID?) and "assigned ownertrust" (how much am
i willing to rely on cryptographic identity certifications made by this
key?)

In your sharp observation i think you're talking about the "validity" of
two *different* names associated with a single underlying cryptograpic
identity.

> So I don't think identity trust calculations must generally always be
> additive when given more information.

Right, i can see how that is an interesting counter-point: two mutually
conflicting identity assertions about the same underlying principal
should make either identity assertion *less* confident than it was
before.

I don't know of any WoT implementation that includes this kind of
heuristic, but i can see why it might be desirable.

For the sake of the discussion here though, i was talking about how to
think about certifications that all *agree* on the uid+key binding
(validity), but maybe differ in degree of trust asserted.

I had worked from the following observations:

 - three certifications from "marginally trusted" certifiers add up to
   full calculated validity for the subject.

 - a certification from a "fully trusted" certifier *also* endows the
   subject with full calculated validity.

 - one certification from a "fully trusted" certifier plus another
   certification from a "marginally trusted" certifier *also* endows the
   subject with full calculated validity.  (i think -- i'm realizing now
   that i haven't explicitly tested this claim which i thought was
   non-controversial)

 - a "full" tsig at depth N results in the subject being a fully-trusted
   certifier with depth N-1.

From the above, i'd assumed that

 - the one "marginal" tsig at depth N plus one "full" tsig at identical
   depth N would result in a fully-trusted certifier with depth N-1.

But this last thing appears to not be the case.

    --dkg

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-devel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEARYKAB0WIQRjrBGOWy5dZsiKhad4C4VO2cK0lgUCaBqc/AAKCRB4C4VO2cK0
lqDKAQCxmh+x/Tldc49WZEXbZLqhqWJhcA+BjI9VhnooNgoK+QEA6wkli0RIAcqL
39uDqwjKfJ+RbPcNRP9Ao+lTvhA5Mwk=
=zUFo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----