4 ms·
> His argument: GnuPG — a proven, and well reviewed technology is broken because some minor bugs were found, despite the fundamental crypto behind it still bein
by soraminazuki 7y ago
> His argument: GnuPG — a proven, and well reviewed technology is broken because some minor bugs were found, despite the fundamental crypto behind it still being more sound than anything else.
I don't think we've read the same article. Nowhere in the article does he mention a "minor bug" that can be avoided by using the latest versions of GPG. He explains in length why encrypted emails, and also GPG in particular, is broken by design. That's really two different things.
I'd also hesitate to call something that hasn't reached the masses a "proven system." It's only a tiny fraction of *nix users that actually use the software.
- baybal2 7y agoWe read the same article, and you did not understand it beyond the screaming claims, and shallow statements. No, him saying it's "broken by design" is really not substantiated. SigSpoof is certainly not a design specific bug, but an implementation flaw. On other hand, the "new agey" crypto messengers mess up the protocol and the app internal mechanism hard, and that's compsci101 mistake no matter how much they gaslight that. It's them benefiting from their stuff not being subject to serious security review because of lack of adoption, not the other way around.
- tptacek 7y agoThe article is not talking about SigSpoof. The person you're corresponding with appears to have read the article more carefully than you have.