In today's video, if I pull a foil, I open a vintage pack. What's up guys, we're back with another pull a foil open a vintage pack video, but this one is a little bit different than the other ones you may have seen in the future. In the future. But this one is a little bit different than the ones you may have seen in the past. In this video, every time I pull a foil, we will gain points. An ultra rare will count for one point, secret rare's for two, ultimate rare's for three, collector rare's for four, ghost rare for five points, and finally a starlight rare will count as 10 points. And what will we do with these points, you ask? We'll redeem our points at the end of the video to buy packs from the pack bank. As you can see before you, there's a lot of older packs, so you might not be able to see all, I'll move my facecam for this. Dual saliance and blue eyes white dragon reprint. This is not the 25th, but the one before that. These are in the one point pack. So if we have five points, we can buy five of these type of packs. I have more than just the two sitting here. If we get into the two point range, we can do stuff like judgment and light first edition, galactic overlord. Three point range, stardust overdrive booster packs, potential ghost rare and ultimate rare's inside of there. And finally, the big packs, the retro pack two will be for five points. So if we have 15 points, we can get three retro pack twos, if that's what we wanna do. So now that we've explained the rules, let's do the giveaway. I'll be giving away these three cards. You may have seen these given away in a recent video. They're actually different versions. I had two sets. All you have to do is like the video, be subscribed, turn on notifications, let me know down below. What should I have bought with the points that I get? So you're gonna have to watch the video and see how many points we got, or what do you wanna see me buy with my points? And we will be opening 30 packs to try to get as many points as possible. There will be a point counter on the screen and we will redeem those at the end. So let's get to it. Let's start off with a ghost from the past one. I would love to pull a ghost. That would be an instant retro pack too. We could open as well as having a ghost. So it'd be a win-win for everybody. Let's start here. Let's see how many points we can rack up today. We have time thief, we have heals unroof. We have Cosmojo and we have, okay, so the thing about this pack is you can only get ghost rare's because everything is guaranteed. So ultras do not count as two points there. That would have been 10 points. It'd be a little crazy. All right, let's try a legendary duelist. While not a great set, we could pull a five point goaster out of here. So that would obviously be pretty awesome. No pack trick here. And then ultras are fairly easy to pull in here. So maybe we'll get one. There it is, our first two points. Salamand, great raging Phoenix. Already adding points to the scale. Legendary duelist may be a terrible set, but it is pretty easy to pull ultras. So it'll be great for adding up points. All right, now I'm bringing back an older set. Darkwing Blast. So it's about a year old at this point. Still a lot of really awesome cards inside of here. And some really good super skills. Some of those Bistials are still pretty expensive. There's also Starlight potential, which would be 10 points, two retro packs and one single card. Could be pretty insane. So let's see if we can do that. We'll do four from the back. We have a prediction princess. There's also potential for secrets, ultras, all that stuff or points as well. I said two points for ultras. That's only one point. What am I talking about? It's definitely not two. Amazon is secret. We have a Ruxen special. Blackwing, straight to the CMOS. All right, nothing there, but that's okay. Wild survivors, ultra rare is a little bit harder to pull it from here, but the collector rares are worth four points here. That's one of the reasons that collector rares are worth a little bit more than ultimate rares in this opening. We have Petite Taradon, Transcentosaurus, Drulganathus. We have Frosasaurus, Ruxen special again. I just loved a Ruxen special. I can't, oh my God. Now we're opening a little OTS-22. Ultimate rares are three points. They're not that crazy hard to pull in terms of number of packs, only about one in every 16 to 17 packs. So that's why they're not worth as much as collector rares, but three points is still a lot. Let's see, we already have one point. Let's see if we can get another point here. We have, oh, there's the super right off the bat. Okay, so just a super rare, clear new world, nothing too crazy there. Let's try for ourselves another starlight rare set, Battles of Chaos. It's a pretty awesome set. A lot of potential dark magician in here would only be an ultra, but it would be extra stuff there. I'm gonna do a little bit of this. We have a some more, murder perfection, smoke and mosquito. My it's a mutant. We have the knee-rolly. Don't monster bear bear. Kaiser, hidden star. DDD head hunt. We have dogmatica cabaret. We have a zombie vampire secret rare. That one is two points. We officially are at three points now. Zombie vampire, pretty solid card out of Battles of Chaos. Very, very nice. I believe I saw that's getting a reprint of the new Megatons. So if you're seeing this video closer when I actually released it, the new Megatons are coming out very, very soon. So use my code down below. You can get 5% off with Sasiado. So go check that out if you guys want to support the channel and also save a little bit of money on your tins. Let's try another long ball hitter, a homerun that goes from the past one. Can we pull some crazy? We have Miracle Synchro Fusion. Madolche Chateau. We have Salamangrae Falco. Metaful Fusion.  Let's try a tactical masters. Inside of here, collector of sets or looking for ultras or collector rares. I think this is a European pack so we got to open them straight. No pack tricks going on. Book of Eclipse. Been grieving. We have a Valence Buster bear in his back again. Okay, I did bring eight Darkwing Blast. So I forgot that I had all these Darkwing Blast packs and I was like, you know, we should probably open some of those before they all get reprints because I know some of them are probably getting reprints soon. You know, it's been a while since this set came out so it's very likely. For some reason, these are really sticking together. I'm not able to really do the pack trick very well. Can we get a starlight? By the way, we never pulled the Blackwing Dragon starlight rares. So that'd be a great one to pull and get 10 points. We have a Tirolet Scream, it'd be a win-win. The Tirolet Mole Cricket. We have the Trivigate Showdown. Scareclaw Tunesaw. And we have a meteorologic aggregate. That is not any points. All right, another Wild Survivors. Can we survive this opening and get a retro pack to pack opening? That'd be pretty cool. At least one, we have True King. We are two points away from being able to do that. We have Tinky, Ruxen Special. I'm in a Ruxen Special that basically every time so just get used to it, okay? Goes from the past. I do have a few other ones. I, yeah, okay. We're trying to balance them out how we open them. We have the Cypher Blade Dragon. Splash Mage. Metapulse Silver. We have the Sunseed Shadow and we've got Meteor Black Common Dragon. Good card. It's not a four.  OTS Tournament Pack 22. Let's go. Can we get an Ultimate Rare? It's right at the front, I think. These are the ones that are really hard to open, I remember. Okay, let's just do it like this. We have a Herald of the Abyss. We have a Noble Knight and we have a Pearly Happy Memory. Okay, not a Happy Memory for us. Darkwing Blast, I believe in you. I believe that you can bless us with something crazy here. All we need is one Starlight Rare. We're sitting pretty here. Three points so far, not too crazy, but also not the worst ever. One, two, three, four. Will that be a Starlight right there? We have Prediction Princess. We have Celestial. Underworld Ritual. Cagedo. Amazonas Silver Sword. Cucumber Ores, the speed run. We have Blackwind Zonda. Size of Battle. And we have the Mitsu. That's a point. It's a terrible card, but that is a point right there. We'll take it. Four points added to the tally. One point away from a RetroPack 2Pack. All right, this could be an entire RetroPack 2Pack right here if we can just pull something. We've got a nice variety here. Some of them are more conservative. We can get basically any rarity. Some like this can only pull one high rarity. We have Counter. We have a... Trigunity Embergram. Trigunities added again. Let's go. LTS-22. Come on. Oh my gosh. Look at the back. We're just gonna go straight to it. Oh, Evo. The back are destroyed on these packs. Come on, Darkwing. We're probably getting close to halfway through. We gotta get to at least 10 points, right? At least five. I mean, five minimum. One more pull will be there. Anything. Any Ultra Secret. Any high rarity. Whatever it is. Let's go. We have Amazonas Golden Whip Master. Scareclaw Declined. Infernal Queen Salmon. Underworld Ritual. Cache Tierra Ogre. Decisive Battle. The Trigium Mold Cricket. Amazonas Secret Art. We have a daughter dagger for hires. The four hires, I do love them. No points though. All right, we saw Battles of Chaos. We got a Secret last time. So I'm not like, you know, our expectations aren't too high, but I would love to pull something crazy. You know, like a Dark Magician. Starlight Rare. Either one would be great. We have Miss. Sonic. Groza. Dino Brown. Dino Morpheus Alert. We have Jarden. Silver Vines. Henry. Dino Morpheus Diplos. And Dino Morpheus Reversion. Oh, gross. We need something crazy, guys. Come on. Come on. We have the Time Thief. We need that Ghost Rare. Sunseat Twin. Sunablam Bloom. Hieratic Seal. We've got a vampire. I don't think I'd say you say that, but it just sounds good when you say it like that. One more tactical master's pack. We haven't had any luck with the collector assets which is, you know, pretty normal. Let's be honest. But all we need is one big collector rare. That would really, really blow this open. We have the Imperial Iron Wall. Back Jack. Cosmic Cyclone. Larmeth Archfiend. And we have Rooting Golden Droplet. All right, we're getting pretty low. We're probably like two thirds of the way through this opening. We only have four points. We need one more point to open the retro pack. Come on. All we need is an Ultra. Come on, points. Bless us with something good. One, two, three, four. Send me the luck on the comments, guys. We need some luck. Black Shadow Squall. Cherry of Breathsling. We have the Augusta Sword. Heartbeach. Catalyzer. Hot Rod. We have Amazon a Spiritualist. As let's go. We have an Ultra. Maison, the battle ninja. You guys know what that means. The point counter had just gone up to five. And that means we are officially able to get a retro pack too. But we want more. We're greedy. Legendary Duelist. He gave us an Ultra earlier. Let's even get a ghost. That'd be great. It's all my great Helio. Volcanic Rimfire. Watch out for that rimfire. And Volcanic Doomfire. All right, nothing there. Wild Survivors. I believe in you collector sets. I know you can pull something out of here. You're not just here to mess around. We're not ruxus specialing this, by the way. Chief. I'm a chef. Ah! Not only that ruxus special, I super ruxus special. I guess that was what I meant. I'm not gonna ruxus special. I'm gonna super ruxus special. We failed utterly, but that's fine. We can still get an Ultimate Rare right here. OTS Turn of the Pack 22. Let's go. Ultimate Rare. Here we go. I believe in you. The reveal. They're a new world. Okay. Titanic Moth. Watch out for those mullets. Darkwing Blast. We have three of these left. We're officially down to seven packs, I think. Five points is not bad, but we could definitely do better. Darkwing Blast. Here's your chance. Let's go. One, two, three, four. We have Infernal Queen. Samon. Pendulum. Black Shadow. Scareclaw. Amazonus Pet Liger King. Cucumber Horse. Zalamander. Venusliff. Blackwing, and we have... That's the super. I couldn't tell it was the super. Dang it. All right, let's do the last OTS pack, and let's just hope there's an Ultimate Rare in here. The final OTS pack, will it have an Ultimate Rare? I believe this could be three points right here. Come on. Let's do a little pack trick for this. We have the Evil Tile. Not a show. Sync Blade Blast Wave. And... It's just annoying. So it looks like the high rarity cards aren't wanting to show up today. Second to last Darkwing Blast. We need something big here. I mean, even a secret would be nice, so we could get a couple of one dollar packs, not one dollar, one point packs, I guess. One, two, three, four. I mean, anything would be nice. It'd be extra bonus packs. We have the Great Noodle Inversion. Psychic Grover. Tirumut's Grief. Amazonus Augusta. Scareclaw Twinsaw. Amazonus Pet Liger King. Soul Skizzers. Venusliff in full bloom. And we have the Visio Magnum Hunt. That's a great card, but it's not any points. I think it's like eight bucks, though. Very, very solid. We're down to four packs left. Ghost from the past. Ghost Rare. Bless us. O'Jama Country. Minolce Fresh to start. Mask Chains 2. Dark Requiem. Exceed Dragon. And finally, Sun Avalon Dryenome. Ghost from the past. Why? Let's try this Wild Survivors. Our last collector rare set of the opening. We got two more packs of this. Or after this, they're not collector rare sets. Come on, there can be only one. Super Soaring. Pre-Preparation of Rites. Hamburgerler Recipe. Baby Sarasaurus. Anquisher. There we go. We got an Ultra. Six points. Let's go. Let's go. You know what that does? It gives us another point. It doesn't really do anything that crazy. Okay, we got two packs left.  Then we'll go to Battles of Chaos. I wanted to say Battles of Chaos, but we're doing that last because of the big potential there. Starlight Rare Blackwing Dragon. Right here. Here we go. Anything would be great though for the point total. We have Amazonas Augusta. Black Shadow Squall. Stars Aligned Across the Milky Way. Prediction Princess. Bibliomuse. Vizonda. Tri-Brigade Showdown. Silver Sword Master. Two-Limit Scream. And finally, we have Blackwing Veda, The Imblem of Wandering. A super. In our final pack, before we get to go to the bank and cash out Battles of Chaos, can you bring us any more points in the final pack? One, two, three, four. We have Dino Morpheus Sonic. The Agent of Destruction Venus. Doll Monster Mish-Medge. I don't know how to pronounce that. Flower Dino. Fire Opal Head. Ice Jade Erosion. Mabel Maiden. Ghostric Siren. Final Guard here. Give us some more. A secret would be great. Come on. Ice Jade Creation Kingfisher. Okay. No more points in the final pack. But it's not over yet. We have six points. I will now deliberate on what to get.  So I am going to get this. We get to pick one pack from over here. Let's just do a Legend of Blue Eyes pack. Why not? Why not? Too old school? I know you guys like old school. We'll finish with the retro pack too. Let's do this 2017 LOB pack. So not even a 25th anniversary. So it's six years old. Here we go. Was it worth our six points? Or one point here. One, two, three, four. Do a little swappy swap for the Blue Eyes, Y Dragon. Beaver Warrior. That's a great sign. Come on, guys. Silver Fang, if you enjoyed this video, don't forget to subscribe to the channel. Sense of Block, let me know in the comments if you like this format. We can do it again. We've got our number one. Panda, Hinatama Soul, Red Medicine, Grave Diggoo. And we have the 13th grave. Oh no. Just a grave. That leaves us with one pack left. Retro pack two. We're gonna get about a $200 pack here. Here we go. Blue Eyes, Shining Dragon is what we're searching for. Any secret we go crazy. Ultrarare would like Genzo, Injective Fair, Lily, something like that. Here we go. I don't know what the pack trick is. I think it's four, but I'm gonna do three to be safe. Emergency Provisions, let's go. Bottomless Trepol, Nobleman of Crossout. Some of these commons are worth money. Villasaurus, I think Nobleman might be one of them. Creature Swap, Light Force Sword, Yugi. Watch out for that Exodia. Yadagrasu used to be a $3 common. I think it got, after it got the Ultra Reprint, it went down. Oh, and a Necro Valley was the rare. Okay, Necro Valley is actually a really good one though because Necro Valley is a very expensive card. Okay, no foil though. That kind of sucks, but Necro Valley is great. If you guys enjoyed the video, don't forget to subscribe to the channel for more epic content like this. Shout out to Tomfosho, Daxer, JT Show, Puffins of Doom, Ernesto, Deanna, America Doidster, Supreme Sage 21, CJ, Leo Guine 62, another Thai show, Ian Moosa, Junior Barney, Mimegeko, and Robert F. Thank you guys for supporting the channel. I'll see you guys in the next video. Peace.


So first of all, my apologies to Takeshi Saito and all the people in Japan because the original plan was to give this talk in June. But, well, at least I can give it now in Paris. And also my apologies to the people in Kota Boru because I would give the same talk as I did there. So I want to talk about Shimura varieties with internet level and toy in the form of looking at these metric spaces. And I want to first start with these Shimura varieties. And in fact, I'll probably restrict myself to discussing this in the case of the modular curve. It's already interesting in itself. So I'm going to talk about the classical theory of the complex numbers. So we'll see if we can get the modular curve by looking at the upper half plane. So the set of complex numbers of positive and imaginary card. And then you fix the Hungary subgroup gamma in SL2 of the introduced. And so this acts on the upper half plane. And then you get the modular curve at level gamma, quotient of h times n of the subgroup. And so this parameterizes some elliptic curves for the structure. And so the picture I want to... There's a picture there I want to get also over the periodic numbers. And so the picture is the following. So you have h, which is roughly... Well, not quite exactly, but roughly the inverse limit over the modular curves at all levels. And so just by definition, this particular upper half plane embeds into the projected space over the complex numbers.  So you can consider h also in terms of modular description as parameterizing pair e alpha where e is the elliptic curve of a c. And alpha is the trivialization of the first singular homology of e. And in terms of some modular interpretation... So you take a pair e alpha... So orientation preserving the variation, if you want. Yes, sorry, orientation preserving. Well, in fact, I mean later on I will also confuse... I mean I said this is the modular curve, but usually you take several connected components and that will confuse the two points of view later on. So anyway... And what you do is you sense this to the virtual iteration. So what's the virtual iteration? Why is it that alpha you can identify c2 with the complex homology of e? Why some of the exponential map... Anyways, it's subject to the algebra of e, which is a virtual iteration. And so this gives a one-dimensional equation of 6 to the right of vector space and doesn't have a limit of u1. And so we want a similar picture over cp. And so clearly we have to need some virtual iterations talking about this. So thus I want to recall a little bit about virtual iterations over cp. Or in fact, I mean we can replace cp by any algebraic equals extension of cp. So let's c over cp e over cp equals cp. And let's take any proper smooth variety over c. And well then there's this classical theorem of FORGE. Probably... If I put only proper here, maybe I also need some additional reduction arguments maybe future would be. That there is such a wrong spectral sequence I need to generalize. So the wrong spectral sequence pushes up to high. So it starts from the e1 page and it's e1 page to the FORGE coordinate. And it converges to the wrong coordinate. And so the theorem is that this degenerates at the first page already. And so this means that... So of course it's proved by the left chest principle choosing an isomorphism maybe between c and the complex numbers using complex analysis there. So this degenerates at e1 so thus we get a hodged-rump filtration on the wrong homology. With successive quotients of hodged-rump homology. But if you look back at what we wanted to do here so we wanted to have a filtration on the singular homology. So of course over c that's not a problem because the singular homology as you can see is connolly to the wrong homology. So the wrong filtration is good. But over c pieces is no longer true. So if you take the entire homology at x to keep the coefficient say. Then it's up to c. So it's not canonically a piece as a morphic to the wrong homology. And so we can't use this to produce a filtration on the wrong homology. And then of course if you look at equities and you wouldn't even expect such a statement to be true but you would rather expect that such a statement is true after you change it with either wrong but not even then it's true. As my base field c doesn't embed into the contents field either wrong. So if this guy was defined over some discreetly valued extension, maybe this perfect residue field then such a statement would be true. But if my writing starts live only over another very close field that's no longer true. So we need some other homology filtration to make sense of this. And fortunately it is such a filtration. So there is another spectral sequence which looks very similar but has some interesting twists in it. Let's just start to take spectral sequence. Which again starts from Bosch homology but this time on the YouTube page. And I'm not making any typos here, I'm really being careful. So it interchanges i and j and you have to put a take twist. And converges again, well not again, but this time it converges to a powerful homology. So as I'm only working over c it probably doesn't make much sense to put a take twist here but whereas Mantis said in this way it's canonical and my writing is defined over some smaller fields. It converges to h i plus j. Sorry h i plus j is correct. If it's defined over smaller fields that with these take twists everything will be galawike invariant. And this also degenerates already. That's the first take which is this 22. And thus you also get a filtration on a taco homology term that we see these successive functions are again hosh homology. This filtration I call the hosh take motion. It gives the hosh take the composition. It is the one which gives the hosh take the composition. So assuming your variety is already defined over an extremely weighted extension of qp with perfect residue field, then it follows from the galawike invariance that it has to degenerate because there can be no differentials between the galawike and differentials in here. And also there are no extensions and no maps between those so this implies that actually this filtration is canonically split by using the galawike action. But that's only true if it's defined over a discrete value of the extension. And so in general this is really just a filtration and it's not canonically split. So let me give you an example for this. What does this look like? So in the case of interest so that you can take an elliptic curve up here in the field now, then of course we have the you can look at the first around homology say of E which you can define say it's a duality of the universal vector extension or also it's a duality around homology. And so this is a filtration with a quotient. It's not a duality. But for elliptic curves maybe I wouldn't have to talk about the duality curve first. Well in general it's kind of if you have put in the real variety here then you would have to use the duality of the real variety here. And if you take the duality curve take it three times the dual vector space. And then there's another filtration where you take the take module of E and this is up to C. And so now the two terms I need to change. You know, this term is a core kernel and the real algebra appears as a sub and in fact to make it canonical you have to put a T for a square one here. And so again if this is defined with some small field then this implies that this is our state representation and this is the state canonicality of the sum of the two terms but not in general. And over C those two terms would be isomorphic and also over C this is also canonicality split. Let's get back to the modular curve now. So we want to define a map which is just given by associating an elliptic curve to this filtration here. And to do so we of course have to trivialize the take module. But note that this time you only have to trivialize the take module and not the whole integral homology. So you don't have to do anything that's primes away from P. And so what do you do? Is this the edict space that just depends on a version of a rigid analytic variety? Over C associated with my modular curve well upper I would find it as something over C but say well I could argue that it's defined over a Q if I put some additional components or I could also simply choose an asomorphism between C and QP bar that is C. And so we want to trivialize the take module at P so we have to take an inverse limit over all the levels at P. So let me choose the following notation. So that gamma P to the N inside gamma be the principal comb of N sub-primes. So it would probably be more standard to write gamma cap, gamma P to the N but to keep notation simple. Let's do it this way. Again, I have to pay attention to the numbers. Too high? Okay. And then the theorem is that this picture which we had was a complex number so it doesn't make sense over the period of numbers. So for this of course we first have to make some sense this inverse limit over all the levels at P and we have to do some original geometry and so this means we have to take a lot of completions and of course completions are not generally well behaved if you're leaving in a serious setup but if you want to take this inverse limit we really have to leave in a serious setup so we might run into a lot of technical problems. Well actually we don't. So maybe there's some special kind of non-serious spaces which are all behaved and these are also these perfect word spaces. As you can see, such that well I would like to say it is the inverse limit of these spaces but as it turns out the category I'm working in doesn't admit inverse limits so one has to use a slightly stronger notion which I call being similar to the inverse limit. What does it mean being similar to? So these edit spaces they're actually locally earned spaces equipped with some variations so you don't have to talk so they really have an unaligned topological space and not just some broken ectopos and this condition means first of all that you get an homomorphism on topological spaces that's a condition which says roughly that if you take the direct limit of the structure sheets at finite level that's just the structure sheet at infinite level that's a systems image. The problem with some of that there is no canonical topology you can put on the direct limit so there will be a direct limit topology of the good kind so you take the topology which is the bar topology which makes the open unit ball a set of 4.1 kilometers in here Well anyway, it's a technical issue but the second part now says that on this infinite level guy this hot state period limit is defined so it makes this state period limit on my little character infinite level going to a space and it has a bunch of good properties so it's affine in some sense meaning that there is a covering by this p1 by a fielded sub-spaces whose pre-images are fielded perfected sub-spaces of this infinite level guy and it also commutes with hack operators and so what does this mean? So this is defined over a purely fielded p1 so g of g2p certainly acts on the sky and of course if you write this here as we know at infinite level we have an honest group action of this group on the space not just some hacker correspondences and so it's g2pp-acquiriant and also it's acquiriant for hack operators away from p what does this mean? so we have some long-term hack operators here but it's not clear how they should act here but in fact they just don't act okay what else? so there's a natural ample line bundle given by the dual of the real algebra of the universal elliptic curve on this modular space here then there's of course a natural ample line bundle on p1 of 1 in fact they're compatible so the natural line bundle of omega on this modular space is just a pullback and in general there's such kind of a statement for automatic vector bundles so in general for some dual variety you will get some map to some flag variety and on this flag variety you will have naturally defined some automatic vector bundles and if you pull them back you get some automatic vector bundles on your dual variety that's after all how you define automatic vector bundles in the complex setup and also it's true that this map extends to the minimum of compactification the cover of minimal compactification is also good gives a perfect yeah so if I could put if I denote by star the minimum of compactification then I mean this here is also sugar I should put star here and actually it's more when I say this I realize that to make this f fine I actually have to talk about the minimum of compactification because otherwise I remove some cast I should put some minimum of compactification here of course I should say what's meant is if you take some guide infinite level which is essentially an elliptic curve plus a trivialization of security take module and maybe some additional structure waveforms that I don't care about then this map is to all this coefficient here sitting inside which is which is why I have this item of an alpha the same as c squared I've noticed there's some interesting twists happening here namely over the complex numbers the algebra appear to the quotient where it now appears as a sub-module from p1 I want to make a cover from Mark's inventors the first thing I would say is the reinterpretation of this p1 that appears on the right hand side and also what the map actually does so for this I have to recall a theorem that appears in joint work with Jared Weinstein and says the following so again I have my algebraic ghost in complete extending c with oc and c the ring of integers and then I can look at people with other groups with the ring of integers and it turns out that the sort of state filtration that you find of course it depends only on the periodic component so in some sense you would expect that it only depends on the associated periods of the group and so this turns out to be true so there's also a state filtration defined for periods of the groups and that actually that actually classifies those the category is equivalent to the category of pairs lambda w is the same where lambda is the take model so it's a finite free and so this map sends a group G to its period take model so this is some kind of period gather log of P1 specification of the B of varieties over the complex numbers and of course it's also used in a similar way in here and I want to make a remark that if I have a new variety of O C then log state filtration of A is the same as log state filtration of course the period of the group which has an independent definition which is in fact much simpler so there's a very simple definition of log state filtration of the period of the group for the first period in the work of faultings I'm not exactly sure and that was a used log by far again so that's where I learned this so what does this mean this means that we can regard so after trivializing this period take model by giving this log state filtration the same thing as giving the period of the group and so this means that we have to find the perfect points at least on the locus of good reduction so by giving the B of variety not that we'll see but really over the period of integers the log state period map is a map taking the curve to its associated P of the group unfortunately there is no generalization of this mysterium mysterium at Weinstein which works for other rings so not doesn't work in a relative setup it doesn't even work for smaller fields only on geometric points on the locus of good reduction there's this very direct description of what this map does and in general it's almost slightly different but in fact from this description on geometric points you can actually use the covariance properties maybe you can also do a different view because it depends only on the P of the group somehow it doesn't matter if you use some hacker operator away from P so the next thing I want to explain is how this map looks like you have your infinite level modular curve and I mean on a special fiber you have a stratification into the ordinary locus and the super singular locus and say if I would compactify I would put all the cusps also into the ordinary locus and just by putting this back under the specialization map you get a similar stratification on the generic fiber so this actually stratified into an ordinary part and super singular part so this maps to the P1 and there's also a classical stratification studied on the P1 as an egg space namely you have the rational points inside there and you have the complement which is usually called reinforced upper half space and these compositions turn out to correspond so put these arrows here meaning that the ordinary locus is exactly the P image of P1 of QP and the super singular locus is P of omega 2 so what I want to do is define and explain what these maps are on the stratum and they turn out to be very different so already from this diagram you see that the ordinary locus is essentially contracted to points and something non-trivial geometrically only happens on the super singular locus so particularly this map is not at all injective as was the case over the complex numbers but it really contracts a lot of stuff for what does this much take period map do on the ordinary locus on there it just measures the position of the canonical subgroup so because in the canonical case you have the canonical subgroup and in the ordinary case you have the canonical subgroup which gives you a canonical one-dimensional sub of your P visible group and if you pass the take modules to get a canonical one-dimensional sub of your get a take module and that's after each other we'll see this gives exactly the new algebra there that's what happens there but on the super singular locus it's more involved so so what is the super singular locus so that's somehow at level 0 you just have a union of open disks for all super singular points and then as you pass up all the levels then what happens is that all these disks you get these tributate towers and so at infinite level what you get is just a finite disjoint union of tributate spaces at the infinite level so in joint work with Jared Weinstein in the same work we also proved that this is actually a perfectoid space by purely local arguments and Jared Weinstein can even write down explicit descriptions for what the space is which is pretty amazing because at finite levels you don't have explicit descriptions but some of this infinite level guy is in some way simpler than all the finite level guys individually I mean Jared Weinstein is also studying these explicit as finite subsets and they're trying to show that they realize local length and this it's very useful for him to work at infinite level because at finite level you don't have this explicit description okay and now there's this strange isomorphism between the two towers between the tributate and the dreinfeld tower which is due to faultings and then developed in more detail where far again it's a precise setup that we need I mean as an isomorphism of perfectoid spaces it's in this paper of Jared Weinstein that this is the same as dreinfeld space at infinite level but dreinfeld space just by its definition so there's a tower of finite detail covers of dreinfeld space so by its very definition it will map down to dreinfeld's upper half plane and so that's actually what the autistic period map does so the strange isomorphism between the two towers somewhere built into this autistic period and it feels a little strange that there's actually some sort of map of attic spaces which realizes this because if you think that you start somewhere in the ordinary locus and then you run into the super singular locus then for a long time you will stay constant and then at some point you start to walk only but so that's not the kind of behavior you know from finite type geometry but in this infinite I mean this highly non-issuing situation that's actually possible and maybe I'm only at 3 everything I said here for the modular curve it also works for a shimura varieties of hoch type I'm very lucky that I can just write shimura varieties of hoch type without having to think much because as it turns out the first proof is for the Ziegler modular space of principally polarized opinion varieties where it's quite a bit of work but then any shimura variety of hoch type is a close-up variety there and then you can by formal arguments deduce everything you want so that's very nice and now I wanted to talk about some applications of this so the crucial theorem is the following it says that you can always find congruences between Eisenstein series and custom forms in some sense and so the setup is the following so let me take some there you have a Q bar shimura variety which is a hoch type and then the theorem I said any system of Hecker-Argen values which you can find in the complex support homology so it's a shimura variety with a torsion coefficient let's say I work with over Fp can be lifted to a system of Hecker-Argen values of a classical custom form so that's doing two things so it's saying that any torsion class can be lifted to characteristic zero which is a very interesting result and it also says that anything which comes from the boundary can also any Hecker-Argen values which come from something from the boundary can also be realized as coming from something which is a custom form so even if some of this associated Eisenstein series does not vanish more P as a cusp you can still find these converances and maybe I should say that in order to get this classical cusp form I may have to increase the level of P yeah right from P maybe I only consider at this point I still consider the whole Hecker-Argen value away from P to talk about eigenvalues and also to be commutative ok and because by the work of many many people there are now very strong serums asserting the existence of color representations for cusp forms one can then reduce these color representations again and get color representations for something which appears in this torsion core module here and so from this you get in the first corollary the existence of color representations for torsion classes so let me fix some totally real RCM field and that xk is a locally symmetric space here a group of any dimension of this field f and so except in very very few cases this will not be a shimua variety so if f is q and n is 2 then this is a modular curve but essentially outside this case it's not a shimua variety let's do someone so already f is q and n is 3 this is just some real manifold or if f is totally imaginary and n is 2 then this is some three dimensional hyperbolic manifold so which has no algebraic structure at all but still the Batico module of this real manifold knows about color representation so there exists a color representation real from the absolute colors of the f and continues of course to deal with people it's associated with the meaning that in particular the traits of Frobenius elements will be the eigen-based of some heck of the values so it's an old idea that you should try to realize these locally symmetric spaces here as boundary components in the Borel's circle magnification of some unitary or synthetic shimua varieties so you have this unitary or synthetic shimua variety which has a compactification as a real manifold with corners this Borel's circle magnification and in there these locally symmetric spaces will appear and that's the the homology will contribute to the homology of this space as a boundary contribution and then you lift this which is an upper Euren-Eisenstein contribution to something which is actually a cast form and then for this cast form you know how to attach color representations to it and then how do you know it really contributes there is a boundary map co-boundary map well there's a long exact sequence where two terms are the usual commode and the compact support commode gives us space and essentially this is gone let's ignore the other strata you can do this by induction and so this means that the eigenvalues will appear either in usual commode or in compact support or homology but by comparability it's somehow enough to make and shift them from one to the other I mean you have to dualize things because our representation is here so you know that the the system of eigenvalues will appear either in the compact support commode or in the system of variety but if it appears in the usual commode only then you can use comparability to get something in the compact support commode again but for this exact sequence the boundary is like a hypersurface no no for the bio-sacrification as a property that's the inclusion of the open part into all of it exactly but okay and so there's also a version of this here a teximo p2zm coefficient and then in the inverse limit you can get some results about characteristic zero stuff and so this way you get the second corollary which says that for any regular so-called regular algebraic hospital automatic representation pi of gln over f fs above they exist to be and any isomorphism between c and ql bar there exists a continuous well actually it's almost everywhere on ramified associated with this system and so I should say this was proved before I did by Harris-Lam Tate and so on and so the point is that you can realize these regular algebraic representations in the corollary of these local isometric spaces with some coefficient systems it's conjectured that you can do results irregular but then you have no idea where to find these representations in which corollary groups the simplest case would be the case of mass forms of eigenvalue a quarter for the Laplace-Lassian and the case with a ground-fuse q and n is equal to 2 so one has no idea how to attach corollary representations to them and so in the last few minutes let me try to explain the proof of this theory here so let me use the same notation for the associated edict space where I probably also choose some such isomorphism here let's listen to C the first step is to use some p-adecoch theory to rewrite this etaco-module group there but obviously we're interested in some torsion groups so we need some kind of integral p-adecoch theory isomorphism and usually those only work if your variety is good or same as the reduction or something like that but as I want to increase the level at p indefinitely I can't expect that I can get through with such statements because it's very hard to find same-estatal models for these two more varieties and so one needs a different kind of comparison result whereas the thing you compare it to is a priori still something mysterious it's a foreign statement so it's a comparison result for torsion coefficients which appears in my work on p-adecoch theory but it's mirrored on the result of faultings so it says that if I look at the etaco-module group torsion coefficients so it doesn't matter whether I compute it on the etic space or on the variety it's the same a general comparison result and if you turn this up to or c-mod p so you get a map to the cormology well actually I have to go to the minimal compactification here and that takes the cormology of the following strange sheave it's sheave i plus 1p we'll explain in a second and in fact it's not an isomorphism but it's almost an isomorphism in the sense of faultings it's almost mathematics so in all this proofs there will be a lot of statements which are only almost true but it won't matter in the end so what is i plus is intersection of i and o plus inside the structure sheave where this is the functions which finish its boundary of course forms and this is the sheave of functions bounded by one and so this kind of cormology group which appears here has several strange properties so it's computed on the characteristic zero space but it's the sheave is a characteristic p-sheave still and it's still extremely important that you compute it on the entire side of the space so this makes it a priori extremely hard to understand well that's the first step and now I pass to an infinite level at p so the direct limit overall that was at p of this group of coefficients entered up to osu!p is an almost isomorphism too eta cormology now computed at my infinite level shimua variety with the same level kp same sheave and so now the task is to understand this group here and so remember that in the end you want to go to classical cost forms and there are already one step there because we already have the sheave of cost forms which appears here so the second step is to get rid of this eta side here so it says that you can actually also compute this now now that you are at infinite level it doesn't matter anymore so this is almost the same as and so this left hand side can actually be computed by a sheave complex with respect to some affinity cover and so what this relies on is some version of the almost periodic theorem and in fact in some of the almost periodic theorem our priority only does something for the finite eta covers and I really want to consider the whole eta side here so one needs some slight refinement of it but I can prove it with the same methods and it says that if I have some perfectoid of unit algebra and if I look at the associated perfunerate perfectoid space then you can compute the eta cormology on x of this O plus sheave and then there is a similar version for this I plus sheave and it's actually what you think it should be so at least almost so it's R plus in degrees 0 and 0 in positive degrees so there is some kind of version of Tate's a specificity theorem for the eta side but Tate's theorem would only apply if I don't put the plus here so if I invert P but I really want the version without inverting P and in classical originality geometry this statement with the plus here is absolutely not true so there is a whole lot of torsion in these groups in general in fact unbound the torsion if you don't put some at least normality hypotheses but if you pass to this infinite level then all this torsion will somehow go away okay and so this means that so what are the terms in this complex here so there are the sections on you for I plus in fact I can mod out P afterwards by this result there we use some infinite P's and so these are cast forms of infinite level defined on a finite subset and remember that in the end we want to get some Hecker-Argan values in in a classical cast form so what's left to do is approximate these cast forms of infinite level which are only defined on some infinite subsets like globally defined cast forms which are of finite level without messing up the Hecker-Argan values classical meaning in particular of finite level one extra minute so the step 2 I used as a space perfectoid and the step 3 I will use in a long time period so what I mean there are first these usual techniques like going back to cut this paper on panic modular forms um how to extend how to make this procedure so usually you would be the ordinary locus and then the solution is to modify by the Hussein variant so what properties of the Hussein variant do you need for this so you need that the vanishing locus is exactly the super singular locus so you can remove all poles by multiplying by high enough power of the Hussein variant and the other property you need is that this commutes with all Hecker operators away from P so that it doesn't mess up the Hecker-Argan values so we need some analog of the Hussein variant and where do we get it from so the solution pull back let's say one wire to get some kind of fake Hussein variant so because this Hecker period commutes with all the Hecker operators away from P any function that you pull back from there will automatically commute with these Hecker operators so this gives you this property and then you need to see that there are enough of these fake Hussein variants in some sense and this exactly comes down to the fact that this map is affine you should choose an affine red cover of your well it's not P1 in general but in the P1 say it's more in our curve case pull it back to get an affine red cover there and that's the affine red cover with respect to which it computes this Chech complex there and so it's a weight 1 Hussein it's a section of omega it is a section yeah probably so for which affine red cover you know that the pull back is well for example for the standard of P1 by 2 close ports the point is that this property that the pull back is affine red it's stable under passing through rational subsets and it's stable under the action of the GL2QP and so whatever you have some open subset so there is an open subset for which it is true which contains a rational point and then you can make the subset very large under the GL2QP action and then basically a subset will be rational of one of those and then you get almost all open subsets so whenever you give me some explicit guy I can verify that for this subset it's okay but you don't know it for all rational domains in P1 I guess for all rational domains it should be okay I mean for all rational domains it should be okay I would say because you can put it inside something where it's rational and then I mean because I have very big subsets for which it is true using the GL2QP action and then passes to rational subsets I can get it for all rational domains and all affine red domains are rational okay in P1 well in P1 maybe I think directly it was classified well anyway then in P1 it's okay for all of them but I mean if you produce one if you recover it okay start with questions from Tokyo then BG and then there's okay thank you thank you so can you just briefly how you define this first I show that this is a sequence of system families in some sense so let's how I can define it on the open sheen more variety and then I have to prove that it extends to the minimum of compactification and for this I use some version of Riemann's I don't know how to say it in English it says that bounded function so if you have some normal complex and logic space and you have something seriously close inside there and you have a function which is bounded on the complement of the seriously close subset then it will extend through all the variety and I prove some analog of this in the setting of the specialized spaces to show that the such set period automatically has to extend because in the period neighborhoods of the minimum of compactification I can show that the image will be bounded and then it makes more concrete so you told us a little description that you so you said it related to finding size of motion so can you come up with your process this finding size of motion for your construction I think I didn't understand the question so you mentioned finding size of motion yes so my question is that you can come up with your construction it's slightly different than some autism so far things fixes a formal model and then computing is only on the formal model whereas I computed on the original the generic farther which is something that is actually new to you my theory of life is because there is a specialization from the total purpose of the generic fiber to the total purpose of the formal scheme and I can compute what happens when I'm pushing forward on this map so essentially taking mentioned cycles and if you do this then you recover from this isomorphism I think you need that the model is nice yeah you need that the model is nice which is a morphism this isomorphism between you talk about all the trends of this this isomorphism but in fact it doesn't consider the real detail it just works with yeah it works on the formal scheme that's what I said but one can show using your perfect utility equivalent to if the formal model is sufficiently nice the competition of vanishing cycles is easy if the formal model is sufficiently nice yes I have a question from Pepe can I ask a question yeah can you prove that the total compactation of higher dimensional similar varieties is perfect I saw a little bit about this I certainly expected it's true but for the moment I can't prove it I think so the problems are following so how do I prove it for the minimum competition I first prove it on some specific subset called a street neighborhood of the anti-canonical tower so that part goes through but then for the minimal competition I have all of geo2qp acting on them and so I can move the subset to cover all of the minimal competition but if I wanted to do this argument for the toroidal compactification then it can because on the toroidal compactification you don't have all the hacker operators acting so it depends on the choice of this conical position and so on so the hacker operators are not acting on it so this argument of spreading it around doesn't work up priori yeah you have to make some other argument so you use a hacker operator so you use geo2qp sorry I use geo2qp okay so that the subset on which I can control everything explicitly it's geo2qp translate will cover the whole space and similarly for Zika's space yeah similarly for Zika's space I mean yeah for Zika's space I use this in vacuum okay so maybe there is some either questions from Tokyo or then from BG maybe not from Tokyo thank you so from BG okay so do you have any questions no okay so then I have one question so in your foray for regular edge bracket representations you construct that Galawara representation and do you know anything on the local behavior of this Galawara foundation for instance do you know a global compatibility away from P and the drama is at P for instance well I mean there's a student of Richard Taylor who was working on these questions and I guess I mean and the student answers these questions to a large extent so there is a potential okay there is a potential okay okay there are other questions okay thank you any questions about the corona like too yes I mean there is something mysterious because you don't have any Shimura but I feel well as I said you write this I think no no but I mean for the FP I understand but now you get something about well I mean you can write this as the commodity of some local system of this XK and by passing to the large level at P you can also forget about the scope of the system and so you essentially just need a version of this Galawara I1 which is not only with FP bar coefficients but with Z about P to ZM coefficients because in the inverse limit you will recover what you want and you get the good HECA eigenvalue I mean the Frobenius eigenvalues are the same as the HECA yes so at all good times so you go about Z about P and Z okay so I use the Galawara I1 for all the FP to ZM's and then go to ZM's other questions if not let's turn to the speaker again


All right, so thank you, thank you everyone for coming. So this is a talk from the GnuPG, the package GnuPG main team, the Debian GnuPG packaging team. I'm DKG. I'm Eric Dorland. And there are many other folks who have been working on GnuPG over the years and are currently working also on GnuPG. So we're just gonna give a little report back about where we are with GnuPG and Debian and what we have planned. And maybe my mouse will work. Yeah, so there's been lots of people who've been working on it. We want to just say, just to be clear there, this has always been a big team effort and continues to be a team effort, so thank you to everybody who has contributed. There's lots more people, that's what that dot dot dot is. It probably includes you if you've reported bugs or complained about the way things work or made new suggestions. But I mean, Daniel's actually done an incredible job this year, has really shepherded the project. I think he deserves a huge round of applause right now. Oh. Thanks. Thanks. So since last year, we've gotten everything moved over to Git for packaging. If folks just saw my previous discussion, that was one of the things that makes life easier for me as a packager. So that was a selfish move on my part to push it. I hope it's useful and I hope other people feel more inclined to jump in if they have things they can contribute. The team itself has adopted GnuPG 2, Libassioon, PinEntry, GPGME. So a bunch of the packages that are sort of related to GPG and in the GPG ecosystem are all under the package GnuPG main umbrella now. Also since last year, GnuPG is now reproducibly built under the reproducible builds thing. So that is awesome. Many, many thanks to the folks who've done a lot of work to make reproducible Debbie in something that we are heading towards at a much faster rate than I expected. GnuPG, we're happy to be part of that. Version 2.1 of GnuPG has been an experimental for many months and it's actually been in Debbie and Unstable for many hours. If you have, so we are. So we uploaded it before we started drinking last night. Yeah, we uploaded it before drinking. So sorry to make your slides wrong this afternoon, Verner, because you said it was in experimental. It's now also in Unstable. It is Unstable. Well Unstable is all kinds of Unstable right now. And so we're making it part of that. Here is our chance to break stuff. This is the beauty of Unstable. We're at that time in the release cycle. We wanna get more eyeballs on it. We wanna find out what problems people have so that we can make it work for everybody who is relying on Debbie and Stable to be stable. So 2.1 is in Unstable. We also did a cleanup of the base install on a minimal server where there were some complaints, I think justifiable complaints that things were pulling in by default too much, too many packages on a minimal server install. We want those minimal Debbie and the installs to be as small as possible, both for resource consumption and for potential bugs. We don't wanna pull in all the graphical stack just cause you wanna have GPG available. And so we've cleaned up the default dependency arrangements to make server installs minimal. We missed that for Jesse and apologies are due for that. Some folks are pushing that that could be something we could do in a Jesse proposed updates. The release team has been reluctant to take that on mainly because there are no strong bugs open about it. All of the bugs are like, oh man, I did this install and it pulled in these extra packages. Is that a release critical bug? And so the release team is justifiably concerned about trying to make a big change in the dependency ordering. To be clear, there's a workaround. If you have a minimal install and you're like, oh, I really wanted to have the GPG2 packages in there but the trouble is they pull in all this extra stuff, the workaround is very easy. You just install pin entry dash curses instead of installing pin entry because the default pin entry will be a graphical one. That's what pulls in the graphical libraries. So if you do have a minimal install and you're worried that it's too bloated because of your GPG2 dependency, please go ahead and install pin entry curses and then clean out the graphical stuff. If you really think that it needs to be done in Jesse, open up a bug and elevate its severity and explain why the severity is elevated and that'll give us the recourse to go to the release team and start talking through what we need to do to make that happen in a Jesse proposed update. I'm not convinced that that's the best use of our time right now but if it really bugs you, let's figure out how to make it work. So this is the big news right? We really want GNU PG 2.1. We want it for a lot of reasons and we want it for Debian in particular. Debian relies heavily on GNU PG for things like verifying our software. We want it because we have updated key storage mechanisms which should give us some faster access to keys. We want it because it'll provide us with elliptic curve crypto which provides us with stronger cryptography for less compute power. We want it for the demonized processes and isolation which have potential to help people keep their secret key materials safer and we want it because we want to stop shipping stuff that people will have the old broken things available to them by default. So this is a little bit controversial because if anybody needs the old broken stuff to work it's probably a Debian developer who's hooked it to some kind of email system that has their old MD5 signed key that simply cannot change and they really need some kind of old broken thing to work. However, that doesn't mean that that's what we should be supporting by default for everybody who's using Debian. It's a mistake for us to offer tools that say hey and by the way this comes with this really cool knife that has blades on both sides for regular use. If you want the knife with blades on both sides you really need to do something special to get access to it. So one of the reasons I personally want to see 2.1 in Debian and move the old stuff, we can move the old stuff out of the way. The older crypto really is not strong anymore and we need to make sure we can move away from it. So a brief slide about elliptic curve crypto and what that means. So without going into the math this is about sort of the social and deployment questions around elliptic curve crypto. So it's a new set of algorithms in the same way that RSA is different from DSA. It's a completely different set of math that's used. And there are different parameter choices you can make for elliptic curve keys. Ooh, spooky. So there are different parameter choices you can make for elliptic curve keys. There are different kinds. And as Werner mentioned in his talk earlier today there are curves from NIST that are well defined, everyone understands but they come from NIST and there's a little bit of dubiousness about their origin. I haven't heard any strong cryptographic explanation that they're backdoored in the way that some standards that came from NIST were. But nonetheless there are some open questions about the way they were generated and we would like to not rely on them. They're also harder to implement and slightly slower and more prone to mistakes than some of the newer kinds of elliptic curves that are being published. And so thanks to Nibesan who's back there we actually have this ed25519 and curve25519 which is a different set of elliptic curve parameters that will be available to us in GNU PG 2.1. And we may even get another curve that's coming from the same process that's sort of settling on the 25519 process. So how do we deploy a new algorithm in a way that's useful? So the first thing is that we really need to get a widely deployed base that can do the public key operations with a new algorithm before we start using them. If I say hey you can encrypt a message to me and here's my key and it's an algorithm that you just don't have access to, then you can't use it. And similarly if I assign something with my key that's an algorithm that you've never heard of before you can't verify my signature. So those things are effectively useless. So we care more about getting the public key side of the algorithms deployed first and then later we'll make sure that people can start to deploy the secret key side of things.  But the secret key side in generating these keys is gonna be hidden for the moment behind an expert flag in the GPG interface. So that means that if we can get 2.1 deployed and we can verify these signatures and we get a wide base of people who can handle the crypto, then we can start encouraging people to consider switching to it. But I don't think we're under any expectation that people will all switch over to ECC as soon as they have a copy of 2.1 available. We just want you to be able to use it when you're communicating with other people who happen to use those keys. So by the way, if folks have questions or concerns about any of the topics here, give a holler. No. Should be mics around. Yep. So the 2.1 transition, how's that gonna work? 2.0 is gonna go away. 2.1 has already replaced 2.0 in unstable. And if we can get 2.1 to the point of stable-ishness enough in unstable, then 2.0 will also go away in testing. It's not co-installable with 2.1. And 1.4, we're gonna move to becoming GNU-PG-1 and the binary will be user bin GPG-1 and the binary for GPG-2 will be user bin GPG. So most people won't have GPG-1 installed. As I said, there are some folks who are gonna need it and they're gonna need to figure out how to get that working. We will support the software, but they're gonna need to explicitly install on their systems, we're not gonna have it available for people to cut themselves with by default. So why the hard cut over? Some people might wanna do Etsy alternatives instead. We as a team don't really wanna deal with that many moving parts. We have enough bug reports to deal with and we have enough things to get settled. We would like to focus our efforts on the 2.1 stream, make sure that we can support upstream, which is also doing an excellent job of focusing on the 2.1 development path. And it creates an additional layer, possibly additional round trips for bug reports. Oh well, what do you have for Etsy alternatives for GPG? We wanna make sure we've got modern crypto available to everyone by default. We wanna discourage older crypto and we wanna just make sure that we're streamlined and focused. So that's why a hard cut over and we're not gonna be going with the Etsy alternatives approach, unless someone comes up with a really good argument for why we should. I also don't think it's very, it's a bit disingenuous at this point where 2.1 and 1.4 are different enough that an alternative is kind of lying. Yep. They don't really provide the same, they're starting to not provide the same interface. They don't support the same algorithms and there's lots of new features in 2.1 that just don't work with 1.4. Yeah. So we're gonna do the cut over in experimental first. We'll continue packaging GNU PG2 as, you know, 2.1 as GNU PG2 in unstable, but we will experiment with a transition with uploads of GNU PG and GNU PG2 into experimental that shift which one is responsible for the GNU PG package. We'll mail WNDevelop announce when that's available so that you, yes, you can try out with experimental on your systems and let us know how we broke everything and deleted all of your personal files so that we don't do that to our users. And we're thinking through how to do this with mailing to all of the reverse dependencies just as a heads up. I'm not sure whether that's the best thing. If folks have suggestions about how to do that, I'd be happy to hear them. You could bring them to the GNU PG mate mailing list. And I mean, I think we should mention too, we're gonna try to be working on this during DEB Conf this week so we may actually have something to look at by the end of DEB Conf, no promises. Yep. So one of the issues about the transition is the Udebs, the Debian installer uses these Udebs, microdebs I guess is the way you could pronounce it. And at the very least it needs GPGV to verify the packages that it downloads. So GPGV is also gonna transit, the Udebs is gonna transition over to the GNU PGV. We've already had some discussions with the Debian installer folks and some discussions with upstream. Thank you, Werner, to try to streamline that process. And similarly, there's a special, weirdly architecture independent Win32 Udeb to help the Windows based installer verify things. And that's also gonna probably move to the GNU PG2 packages. We currently have a GNU PG-Udeb package which used to be depended on by Partman Crypto for people who are setting up encrypted disks. Partman Crypto no longer depends on it. So we're probably gonna make it go away. If you know that you're using GNU PG-Udeb for your Debian installer work, let us know. I did a search of the Debian archive via codesearch.debian.net. Many, many thanks to the folks who are maintaining codesearch.debian.net. And the only place this showed up was that we were at all concerned about was Partman Crypto and it's no longer used there.  In the GNU PG ecosystem, there's the pin entry tools, which is how the GPG actually interacts with the user. So Upstream has made a number of choices recently to make that streamlined and more sort of graphically in line with existing user interface toolkits. I think those changes are really awesome. There's GNOME 3 work, there's QT work that's moving, I think, from four to five. One of the potentially scary changes Upstream is that this means, one of the things about pin entry is that it used to do very, it was very careful about locking memory so that the memory wouldn't be swapped, which means so that the password you typed into the pin entry wouldn't be written to disk by accident. Upstream is kind of moving away from that. And one of the reasons they're moving away from that, I think, is because it meant basically maintaining all your own user interface tools, which meant that whatever user interface there was didn't integrate with whatever people's user experience was. And part of the move towards making this stuff usable is making it fit in your environment. So the move away from let's maintain our own sort of variant stack of QT and our variant stack of GTK so that we can build this stuff and make sure that the memory never gets locked is kind of, that justification is going out. So yes, your password might get swapped to disk as a result of this change. On the other hand, if you're using a modern system and it's a laptop, you probably hibernate your laptop and even locked memory gets hibernated to disk. So the protections against locked memory are not as good as they used to be either. So I think this is a move in the right direction. It's a move towards usability. There's a particular case where maybe it's a slight move away from security, but I actually think getting more people using it will be a broader help to security overall compared to less people using it. I'll repeat the question if the mic doesn't come. The question was, does it also count for pin entry curses? I'm looking to Werner to see, he's struggling. Yeah, pin entry curses may also be making the same set of tests. Yeah, so anyway, it may also be pin entry curses. If you can think of ways that we can fix that with pin entry curses or improve that, that would be great. Here's a microphone, Werner, if you can. There would be an easy solution and just have an encrypted swap space. Have an encrypted swap space, right? That's much, much easier and we could throw away all these things and it's just easier. And of course something which triggers clearing the memory and hibernation, but that's the packaging or the administration thing, so I really would vote for that encrypted swap space would be the default of the systems because I don't think that it's any performance issue than anyway. Yeah, but is encrypted swap space a default in Debian? I don't know, sure. It's not, but it probably should be. Did they open this yet, so. Can someone file that bug right now? Seriously, these are the kinds of things that we can do as an operating system that no individual upstream can do and it would be better for all of our users. So we should make encrypted swap the default and it would remove some of this concern. Thank you. Well, my understanding is that encrypted swap by default would require a lux or some type of encryption and then you'd have to have a password you'd enter. I think it's, is that not the case? No, there are techniques to do it without that, where you randomize the encryption key for your swap at each boot. Oh, right, okay. Yeah, so there are trade-offs, and we need to, but as an operating system, we can figure out how to do those trade-offs to protect the largest number of people. Right now we're probably not doing our best job at that and maybe that's a separate session we can have about how do we deal with this kind of question, you know, encrypted swap, but this is not GNU PG. But this is the sort of thing that I really want Debian to do because we are the only folks in a position to do this. Right, this is not something that anyone upstream can do for us. So we may also diverge in GNU PG, sorry, back to GNU PG from the encrypted swap questions. We may diverge from upstream somewhat in the Debian packaging. We're not interested in doing wild divergence. We want to minimize the deltas where possible, but there are a lot of guides out there that are sort of fiddly guides that say you got to do this thing and change this config and remember, make sure this config is there and some of those guides are more sensible than others and what we would like to do is to reduce the size of those guides to the point where if possible the guide says just use an up-to-date GNU PG. And so the way we may diverge from those is to potentially change some defaults to try to make them more secure so that the guides have less to say. And we're going to do that probably in unstable and therefore maybe testing. And if we get reports of interoperability failures from folks in unstable and testing we may revert those changes before they hit stable. But we have an opportunity to try to encourage people to use stronger defaults without asking them to go fiddle with their text files because that's something that people don't do unless they're mega nerds. We want this to work for everybody. So we're going to adjust it some, we're going to look for interoperability problems and we're going to try to get some of these changes back upstream if we can. Another example is some Linux specific hardening. One change that we made recently is to go ahead and avoid the ability to dump the memory of the GNU PG process. The agent process. Yeah, sorry, the agent process. Thank you, via Petrace. And that's something that upstream is unwilling to do because there are other ways that those processes can be attacked which is definitely the case. But here's a particular attack. We can mitigate it. So we're experimenting with mitigating it right now in Debian unstable. If it turns out to cause too many problems we can also revert that as well. But so these are a couple of places where we might diverge from upstream. Hopefully our experiences in Debian can inform upstream and help them decide whether they want to take those changes or not. If we can get them back upstream, I would love it. If it turns out that we diverge a little bit I also have no problem with that. We want to minimize our divergence. So desktop integration is one of the ongoing pieces of work Werner mentioned to push towards usability as a security feature for the future of GPG. And desktop integration is a big part of that. The work on pin entry has been a big part of that. And we had this conflict for a long time between GNOME and GNU PG about who gets to provide the GNU PG agent interface and what is a proper GNU PG agent interface and how can we evolve the GNU PG agent interface if different implementations are supporting different feature sets. There's a sense that it was being hijacked. And that fight is over. I'm really pleased to announce that the fight is over. Things are better for everyone now. A bunch of folks, the folks who are up here is a mix of people from different teams from GNOME and GNU PG who managed to resolve this in a way that I think is gonna be better for everyone going forward. It's gonna be more usable and more secure. So in light of that kind of improvement I'd like to ask if people have ideas about how we can do better desktop integration better still to suggest those changes. And if there's ways that we can do that within Debian where we can act as the social glue between projects and we can say, look, here's how the negotiations work. We should be able to solve this stuff within Debian. Integration is what we're doing as a distro. So let's do that and let's improve it and make it better. If you have ideas for how to do better integration let us know. Possible future ideas, better testing, auto package test is pretty cool. There's a proposal for doing a little bit of that. We'd like to do a lot more of that. If folks don't know about auto package test, check it out. There's a way that once your package has been built it's like a test suite for the built package as opposed to a test suite while you're building it. So you can actually declare I want an environment that has the following other packages installed and I want to execute this stuff and the output and the return codes should look like this. So you can actually test your system in an integrated way with other pieces of the software ecosystem and then you can get reports that say, hey, this thing broke. So we'd like to do some of that. We'd like to find ways to streamline the user experience for what we know to be some best practices like the use of smart cards and like the use of offline master keys. Currently it's a little bit fancy to get that done and if we can find a way to streamline that that doesn't cause additional support headaches down the line, we'd like to do that. If anybody here is working on one of the language teams like Ruby or Python or Perl or there's lots of others and forgive me if I've forgotten your favorite one but we had GPG has programmatic interfaces like Astuon and GPGME and we'd like to make sure that those are well maintained and well supported. So if we can work with the language binding teams we'd like to do that. Also user interface and user experience review. We know the usability is security argument is pretty strong. Let's make sure that this thing is usable. Let's figure out how to do that without breaking existing tools that rely on it. And if there are other graphical user interfaces that relate to key ring management or to encryption or decryption support if we can help with that as the GPG packaging team we'd like to do that. So just a call for contributions. If you've got ideas from this talk, if you've got ideas before this talk that you've been scared to voice, we're friendly, we don't bite, we would love your help. We would love your suggestions even if it's a bug report that says this is broken for me and you can tell us here's why it's broken we wanna know that, that'll make it better for everybody. So any contributions you have for improvements are totally welcome. Do folks have questions? This is how you can get in touch with us. We've got a mailing list, we've got an IRC channel, there's a wiki page with some details. Zoe Meaghan, I remember there was an issue with APT and GPG 2.1 when being installed together not being able to verify things anymore. Yep, so I can talk a little bit about that. David Kay, I'll say. We worked on, thanks. So we worked on that together, we talked through what was needed to be done and I think it's, and it is resolved. So that kind of interaction was awesome, by the way. Thank you for bringing it to our attention and I'm glad that we could have the conversation that we did. So, oh, question from Enrico. I have a bunch. Okay. One is auditing. We currently, I currently have no way to get an audit log of every time my key is used in WN. It will be, I would like to have it because that would allow me to spot replay attacks or whether my key has been compromised. My bank does send me an email every time I log into the home banking. And it would be, I sometimes go toyed with a thingy that generated an RSS feed of every time my key was, something that was signed with my key was like taken into the archive, for example. It was, or it could be, so it could be like package uploads, requests to DB Debianorg for changing my credential, that sort of things. That'd be nice to have. It wasn't easy, but I'd like to discuss it. And that's one. And another one is we currently require two signatures on a key for some, or one and another trust path to the core of the web of trust to accept the developer. And we're talking about Tofu. I'd like to have a conversation about possibly with you, other than I'm hearing mine, without you, about how do things change in Debian with regards to that. It could be, we want a key that has enough of a reputation attached to it that it wouldn't have been easy to create, for example. Okay. So these are both great ideas. And I'm not sure that they relate specifically to the GNU-PG packaging team. You might be mistaking my hat here. I'm wearing my GNU-PG packaging team and not my key ring maintenance team hat. So, but I don't want that hat. That's your hat. I definitely don't want to be responsible for AdNam. You're right. I was thinking about GNU-PG used by Debian rather than GNU-PG packaging. So, sorry about that. No, but those are both good ideas. And if there's ways that we can support that, I would like to. We should definitely talk about this tofu, the relationship between tofu and the web of trust. I think that the tofu proposals in GNU-PG are not at all intended to make the web of trust impossible to use. The goal is to make it, so let me actually explain a little bit about my relationship with tofu and GNU-PG. I actually have a workflow with a set of really hacky scripts that implements tofu for me. And I've been using it for two years, or three years now, where when I email with somebody and I think that's their key, I convince GNU-PG locally that their key is valid in a way that GNU-PG won't tell other people that I think that that's their key. Because I don't wanna announce it to everybody else, but I want it to be true for myself, that this is the key that they're using. So I don't think that the move to tofu in upstream is gonna make it harder for us to do the kind of web of trust connections that we're currently doing within Debian. And I don't think they're gonna get in the way or conflict at all. If anything, it may make it easier to have those connections made without making it less secure. Too many negatives. So this renaming of GPG2 to just GPG, is this something that's also being done upstream or being coordinated with other distros? We've been shipping a patch for years that renames user-bin-GNU-PG, user-bin-GPG to user-bin-GPG2. Oh really, so this is actually bringing it in line with upstream? That's right, right. And there are other distros that have shipped user-bin-GPG as a GNU-PG2 2.0 something for quite a long time now, okay. Yeah, I think Fedora's been on 2.0 for at least a little while. Yeah, okay, that's awesome, yeah. Can we please have backpots instead of being required to run unstable? Can you have backpots? Instead of being required to run unstable? Backpots of what? 2.1? 2.1? The backpots policy is we may not put things in backpots unless they're in testing. I do not plan to ask for an exception to backpots policy. Which is a good way. So if your concern is that you want it in a backport, help us fix the bugs that keep it out of testing, okay. And then we can talk about backpots. I think Noodle's had a... This is sort of a bigger point, but I think backpots are very important because 2.1 adds a bunch of things that 1.4 and 2.0 are currently mangling in Debian. And that's causing us with our key ring may have had some problems. So if there was a commitment by the team to maintain a backport, I think that would be very helpful. And if you need ma'am part of do that, then I'm happy to be curled into helping that happen. I'm writing that down right now, you know how to find me. I don't think anyone's against a backport. But we do want to make sure that it's good enough to meet the quality of the backport. There's an obvious need to do security commitment to backpots and I understand that that's a lot of work that has to be signed up to otherwise there's absolutely no point putting it in. But I think that will be very useful in terms of getting access to things like ECC out into the wider world, at least for people to play with. Right, and there may be parts of the Debian infrastructure that want to run stable plus backports that we would like to be able to accept ECC signatures on, for example. So yes, I agree. Thank you for offering that. One more question about the hardware support. I make use of tokens for GBG keys. And the support right now, it's a bit, let's say, messy in the sense that you'd have, who should be providing you the rules? Right now it's Gnope G1, I think. So if I have only Gnope G2, I don't have the rules for that. And now that you are transitioning, have you already transitioned? Why is not upstream keeping the list of that stuff? So I have to go and ask every supporter, every provider of a token, like please go and tell them to also add your rule, your ID. That's the first one. And the second one is like SCDemon, the agent for the hardware stuff. And the PCSCDemon, which is the system-wide daemon, they always fight between them. They are a bit racy. Right now, it's better. I mean, I'm not having a problem daily, but in the past it was a bit messy. Now, I don't know where the support is going. If they are merging, they plan to reuse the same kind of code or whatever. So that would be my question. So you might want to hand me a pad? Would you have to talk about that? Right behind you. You can answer this question even better. I maintain SCDemon in upstream. So perhaps if you have encountered some problem, that's because of my badness, perhaps. But these days, SCDemon in upstream has the capability to handle more leaders. I mean, it supports more leaders. So we don't need PCSCDemon anymore for most of cases. Yes. My point was also a bit as a distribution user because I have not only a GPG key, I also have keys for PCSCS 11 or whatever other secret key that I own tokens. So I start having demons for handling multiple stuff and then I have to configure SCDemon to just take care of the GPG token and not the other cards. It's like, my setup is a bit messy right now. So you're basically saying you've got you're competing with each other. So my question is like what do you plan to do as a distribution like? Do we want to set up a policy like SCDemon? Because I know that SCDemon could use PCSCD but it doesn't by default, something like that. So it's like, do we want to unify the handling of all the tokens, cryptographic tokens that exist in PCSCD and then use the other helpers on top of PCSCD or do we want to keep them split or whatever that was like, my question. So I don't have a good instinct on that and my workflow doesn't include those tokens but I'm very interested in the question. I think Nikos had a talk last session about the idea of a unified crypto policy. I was there where it was something completely different. It was more about handling which kind of algorithm and rules every library should support default. So it sounds like you might have instincts about ways that might work or that work for you or work better for you. If there are things that we can be doing better in terms of as a distro accumulating Udev rules, figuring out ownership of certain kinds of devices that would actually work across multiple systems. I agree with you. That's something that Debian is in a position to do. I'd be, I'm willing to work with you on trying to figure out how to fix that and that probably will mean bug reports against multiple packages. I also took a note of your question about the Udev rules within GPG itself and yes, those will be moving to the package that provides user bin GPG. We can talk about that in private later but my question was more like, am I the only one that is having these issues? I mean, I have multiple keys because I work in an hostile environment sometimes and I'm the only one that is having these issues that was strange for me. When I was eating these boxes was like when you're the first doing something and nobody's having the same issues. Yeah, strange. Thanks. I'm the first person in this room with those issues. Five years ago, I encountered similar issues and my answer is my own project that is GNUQ token. So I recommend GNUQ token for your project, for your use. So do we have more questions? There's about seven minutes left but if we wanted five minutes left but if we get five extra minutes out of the day there's one in the back there. This one is not strictly related to Debian but to upstream GNU-PG. It could be easier to implement the best practices. I mean, it's highly troublesome to generate a master key without the encrypted part. You have to do so many steps. If it would just write key missing the primary portion to a file and the complete key to another file and generate a secret key, it would be much easier than you just store away the complete key and you already have one that's missing the circuit part so you can use that as your protected but still daily use keys that it cannot sign other keys but yes, it could be easier. I agree that could be easier and I don't know whether that's actually something specifically for upstream. If we can find specific things that we could fix with an upstream, that would be great but I put this up here as possible futures, streamlining known best practices, offline primary keys. I mean, I fully agree with you that this is an important thing to work on to make it easier for people to do than the current dance. Yes, and about ECC, we should have a guide for Debian people trying to use ECC keys because you actually have to read that safecurves.crypto to actually know what's the problem. I mean, sometimes they are too hard to implement so you should select a cube because it's easier to not make deadly mistakes in code than the nice, the NIS-T ones and they are actually, I think, they are more vulnerable to some attacks than cube. So with my key ringmate hat on, I think we don't want to encourage anyone to switch to ECC right now. I think we want to make sure that this software is deployed so we can deal with ECC keys. Yes, but before, it's not just to have the software that can handle that, but before we tell people that, well, you can try now. We should have a simple guide if the defaults are not already geared towards that. That teaches people a bit about what are the differences between the several curves available in simple terms. Just to reiterate the key ring main point, we're a long way off being able to accept ECC keys in the Debian key ring and them to work reliably. Every single piece of the Debian infrastructure that talks to a GPG key that you expect to work on will have to have 2.1 installed. It's not even in testing, let alone stable at the moment. So I would imagine we're at least two and possibly four years off those being widely supported in Debian. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't look at how we can get them in the hands of developers and I'm glad to see that 2.1 has hit on stable which it hadn't last time I looked. I checked, so we're heckling you. So yeah, absolutely play with it, but don't expect it to work on the Debian infrastructure as being a thing you can use for at least two years and I would say potentially up to four years because of the number of systems that it will be required to understand them. Right, which is why we're switching now so that we can have it in two years or four years instead of in six years or eight years. In two years we should probably have a lot more knowledge about which curves are better. Right, and at that point hopefully the defaults, when we do get that, when it's time to turn those things on then the defaults should be simple and we shouldn't need too much. I mean, documentation is great for those people who read it. But hopefully the simple key generation steps will just do the right thing and make a strong key for people to use once we're ready for people to start using them. Okay, thank you. Sorry, thanks. Rene, do you wanna say something? Well, actually with the offline primary key are with two dot one. It's really, really simple to do that. Are you use dash dash key grip of the listing to see the key grip of the key and then you go and delete the private, the private, find the private and the private deers. We won things directory. There's a file with this key grip dot key. You just delete this one and it is an offline key. Of course you should have on your secure laptop, you should have a copy of it so you can still use it. But it's really, really easy. Just if it's not there, it's an offline key. That's how it works. Cool. All right, so thank you everyone for coming. And I hope to see you on the mailing list, IRC, get in touch with us, let us know what we can do. And of course in the BTS, we'll see you there. Thanks.


33,000 monuments, 26 world-herited sites, 5,000 years of civilization, an incredible nation, incredible India.


I'm Senior Station Officer Daryl Owen from Dandenell Fire Brigade. Shortly after 7pm this evening we were called to a vehicle collision with persons possibly trapped. On arrival we found a vehicle wedged into a drain and culvert area with difficult access, some four or five metres down a steeping bankment. Two patients had been ejected during the rollover and one patient was still trapped within the vehicle. This is made for AV paramedics and the ladder platform and high angle rescue crews were responded to assist with getting the patient up the steeping bankment. Station Officer Matt Jones from Spring Rail was the incident controller and took the coordination role of managing the scene on the road area and I took the role of the extrication sector at the vehicle. The ladder platform was then utilised once the patient was extricated from the car to bring the patient up to road level and then to the awaiting paramedics or transport to hospital. The patient was believed to be a passenger not the driver of the vehicle and was found laying across the passenger seat into the driver's seat area, not physically pinned but still trapped within the vehicle. She was transported to hospital with non-life threatening injuries more for a precaution along with the other two occupants of the vehicle. Unfortunately this event occurred during daylight saving and with some lights still available assisting the rescue crews but also meaning that passers-by made a quick call to triple zero requesting the emergency services. If the event occurred during dark they may have been there for some time before help was arrived or they were noticed.