3 ms·
To save some hunting around, here is the description of what is being proposed here: * https://autocrypt.org/examples.html https://autocrypt.org/examples.html
by upofadown 9y ago
To save some hunting around, here is the description of what is being proposed here:
* https://autocrypt.org/examples.html https://autocrypt.org/examples.html
Basically you include your public key in a "Autocrypt:" header line added to all messages you send out. Then encryption transparently happens.
So we give up some protection against MITM attacks but get protection against passive surveillance for people who are not willing or able to participate in a web of trust. All and all a good idea. Because this works with standard OpenPGP messages it would be good if we could tell what level of protection we were getting when we view a message.
- e12e 9y agoHow is this better than signing outgoing email, and default to encrypt to senders who sign their mail?
- upofadown 9y agoA signature does not give you a public key. You actually need the pub key to verify the signature. I think one could still ask why you couldn't just use a mime section for the public key in the same way that signatures are often attached.
- e12e 9y agoThe implied missing steps are a)publish key to keyserver network, and b) get fingerprint from signature and look up key on keyserver network. Bundling public key with every mail "feels" a bit heavy handed - given the key server infrastructure that already exist. (and special-casing "mail to new receiver" seems cumbersome. At least considering you'd probably want to sign all outgoing mail anyway[1]). [1] Ok, maybe not your bomb threats if they're designed to be anonymous - but that's getting into one of the other issues with pgp - non-repudiation.