5 ms·
Theoretically this is a good thing, but it's way, way too late, since most people use web or mobile clients now. Mozilla should include a proper PGP implementa
by gambler 7y ago
Theoretically this is a good thing, but it's way, way too late, since most people use web or mobile clients now.
Mozilla should include a proper PGP implementation in their browser. In fact, I have no idea why a browser that positions itself as pro-privacy doesn't already have a way to sign, verify, encrypt and decrypt text.
As far as I can tell, there wasn't even a discussion about this, which is ridiculous, considering the web (if you count it as a single system) is clearly the biggest communication platform in the world today.
- boredpenguin 7y ago> doesn't already have a way to sign, verify, encrypt and decrypt text. I know it's not exactly that, but if anyone wants to use PGP in the browser with webmail clients, there's Mailvelope[0]. What I like about it is that you can use it with GnuPG as a backend[1], so I can sign and decrypt emails in the browser with an OpenPGP smartcard without importing private keys. [0]: https://www.mailvelope.com https://www.mailvelope.com [1]: https://www.mailvelope.com/en/faq#gnupg https://www.mailvelope.com/en/faq#gnupg
- exabrial 7y agoPGP Auth would be _incredible_. Imagine being able to claim an account through keybase proofs!
- gambler 7y agoYeah, that's the thing: once you get a full suite of PGP tools as a standard feature of your browser it would make a whole bunch of other features possible.
- dngray 7y ago> Mozilla should include a proper PGP implementation in their browser. In fact, I have no idea why a browser that positions itself as pro-privacy doesn't already have a way to sign, verify, encrypt and decrypt text. Maybe something built on top of Webauthn is possible? I guess we have to wait and see.