Ah, my apologies. I was looking at the wrong thing. No further comment.
On Dec 5, 2007 6:18 PM, Brad Tilley  wrote:
> Wow, my surprise grows... I shall no longer add to this thread... Bye now.

quoted text
>

> http://www.kernel.org/signature.html

> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/pgpkeyring.txt

>

> * One example of a signed Linux Kernel path... there are many others:

> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/patch-2.6.9.sign

>

> * One example of signed FreeBSD code... there are others:

>

> http://taosecurity.blogspot.com/2007/11/updating-freebsd-70-beta2-to-70-...

>

> Some examples of signed communications from FreeBSD & NetBSD:

> http://www.freebsd.org/internal/ssh-keys.asc

> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-announce/2004/02/20/0000.html

>

>

> On Dec 5, 2007 12:59 PM, Kevin Stam < harpalus.como@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> > For one thing, I think you're quite confused. Unless I'm missing

> > something, I'm not noticing the FreeBSD, NetBSD, Linux kernel developers

> > "signing" their code, or doing anything particularly differently from the

> > OpenBSD developers. Please explain.

> >

> > You've also conveniently ignored bofh's question. Why do you see this as

> > being an issue? What risks does PKI mitigate? Did you just vaguely read

> > somewhere in an advertisement about the supposed security benefits?