4 ms·

Does it fix PGP not having forward secrecy?

• exabrial 7y ago
  In my mind, the biggest value for PGP is _proving_ your identity, not encrypting communications (unless said properties of PGP are desirable). That being said, I wish PGP had at least a casual PFS Extension. I've imagined ideas like an ephemeral key server that can deletes keys after awhile (you could run your own), and/or including futures keys to use in replies in the signature block.
  • dngray 7y ago
    That article states why PFS for email isn't really all that useful: > As far as I know, Brown et al.'s proposal is not often used. One reason for this is that forward secrecy is not always desired. For instance, if you encrypt a backup using GnuPG, then your intent is to be able to decrypt it in the future. If you use forward secrecy, then, by definition, that is not possible; you've thrown away the old decryption key. They are two different tools for two different jobs.
• dngray 7y ago
  > Does it fix PGP not having forward secrecy? The thing is about forward secrecy it's only really useful in situations where the communication is real time. Email is not. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/12/signal-does-not-replace-pgp/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/12/signa... If you're concerned about that storing it on a hardware key (like a Yubikey) is the way to go.