4 ms·

> It's like PGP, show me a better alternative and I'll gladly jump ship. PGP is a bunch of use cases glommed together; for most/all of them there is a better t

by neolog 6y ago

> It's like PGP, show me a better alternative and I'll gladly jump ship. PGP is a bunch of use cases glommed together; for most/all of them there is a better tool https://latacora.micro.blog/2019/07/16/the-pgp-problem.html https://latacora.micro.blog/2019/07/16/the-pgp-problem.html

forgotmypw17 6y ago
You are free to only use the PGP features you need.
- iudqnolq 6y ago
  But if you want to send secure messages it also matters if your friend has remember to enable --dont-be-stupid and disable --automatically-guess-its-20-year-old-insecure-format
  - rakoo 6y ago
    Or your friend should use a software that does all the PGP mumbo-jumbo for you such as Deltachat
    - hansvm 6y ago
      I'm not quite sure if you're serious or not. The person you're responding to thinks that a special purpose app would be better than PGP, and your response is that the best solution is a special purpose app which calls into PGP. Why is the latter preferable?
      - rakoo 6y ago
        The person I'm replying to says that PGP is hard to use because there's so many options you have to know and use correctly. I completely agree with that, its UX is most probably the main reason it isn't more widespread. But that doesn't invalidate PGP itself: the format is still useful, we have the tools to use it correctly. So I'm saying that using PGP crypto is still worth it, especially if all the bad bits (configuring, tuning) are managed automatically by the application.
        iudqnolq 6y ago
        The problem with a universal format is it's hard to know that everyone you're talking to does things right. If you have end to end security and the other end leaks, that's not very good. Whereas with a limited format I know a non-malicious counterpart probably has their client configured just like mine. Here's a good quote from the article at the top of this chain: > Take AEAD ciphers: the Rust-language Sequoia PGP defaulted to the AES-EAX AEAD mode, which is great, and nobody can read those messages because most PGP installs don’t know what EAX mode is, which is not great. Every well-known bad cryptosystem eventually sprouts an RFC extension that supports curves or AEAD, so that its proponents can claim on message boards that they support modern cryptography. RFC’s don’t matter: only the installed base does. We’ve understood authenticated encryption for 2 decades, and PGP is old enough to buy me drinks; enough excuses. > You can have backwards compatibility with the 1990s or you can have sound cryptography; you can’t have both.
        rakoo 6y ago
        I am very well aware of the criticisms against PGP-as-a-model and I actually agree with them. The premise that having an open protocol makes changes 10x harder to actually spread is very true. I still believe that it's better to have that than everyone doing the same thing over and over and over again, "but this time it's better". HTTP, javascript and TLS have also shown that a sufficiently motivated set of actors can move the ecosystem forward. True, organizing the ecosystem is not the same job as actually building stuff, but it's still beneficial to all of us.
        iudqnolq 6y ago
        > HTTP, javascript and TLS have also shown that a sufficiently motivated set of actors can move the ecosystem forward. Absolutely. PGP could be decent. Unfortunately efail and sks[1] show it's actors aren't sufficiently motivated. [1] https://gist.github.com/rjhansen/f716c3ff4a7068b50f2d8896e54e4b7e https://gist.github.com/rjhansen/f716c3ff4a7068b50f2d8896e54...
      - forgotmypw17 6y ago
        The latter is preferrable because it uses a widely adopted and time-tested standard, which means another user can use their own special purpose app.
        iudqnolq 6y ago
        That's the problem. You have n*m possible combinations of clients, leading to many opportunities for bugs, and everyone has to degrade to the lowest common denominator because you can't upgrade in lockstep.
        forgotmypw17 6y ago
        How is that a problem?
- neolog 6y ago
  If I want to do X, why not use the tool that's built for doing X?

by neolog 6y ago

forgotmypw17 6y ago

You are free to only use the PGP features you need.

iudqnolq 6y ago
But if you want to send secure messages it also matters if your friend has remember to enable --dont-be-stupid and disable --automatically-guess-its-20-year-old-insecure-format
- rakoo 6y ago
  Or your friend should use a software that does all the PGP mumbo-jumbo for you such as Deltachat
  - hansvm 6y ago
    I'm not quite sure if you're serious or not. The person you're responding to thinks that a special purpose app would be better than PGP, and your response is that the best solution is a special purpose app which calls into PGP. Why is the latter preferable?
    - rakoo 6y ago
      The person I'm replying to says that PGP is hard to use because there's so many options you have to know and use correctly. I completely agree with that, its UX is most probably the main reason it isn't more widespread. But that doesn't invalidate PGP itself: the format is still useful, we have the tools to use it correctly. So I'm saying that using PGP crypto is still worth it, especially if all the bad bits (configuring, tuning) are managed automatically by the application.
      - iudqnolq 6y ago
        The problem with a universal format is it's hard to know that everyone you're talking to does things right. If you have end to end security and the other end leaks, that's not very good. Whereas with a limited format I know a non-malicious counterpart probably has their client configured just like mine. Here's a good quote from the article at the top of this chain: > Take AEAD ciphers: the Rust-language Sequoia PGP defaulted to the AES-EAX AEAD mode, which is great, and nobody can read those messages because most PGP installs don’t know what EAX mode is, which is not great. Every well-known bad cryptosystem eventually sprouts an RFC extension that supports curves or AEAD, so that its proponents can claim on message boards that they support modern cryptography. RFC’s don’t matter: only the installed base does. We’ve understood authenticated encryption for 2 decades, and PGP is old enough to buy me drinks; enough excuses. > You can have backwards compatibility with the 1990s or you can have sound cryptography; you can’t have both.
        rakoo 6y ago
        I am very well aware of the criticisms against PGP-as-a-model and I actually agree with them. The premise that having an open protocol makes changes 10x harder to actually spread is very true. I still believe that it's better to have that than everyone doing the same thing over and over and over again, "but this time it's better". HTTP, javascript and TLS have also shown that a sufficiently motivated set of actors can move the ecosystem forward. True, organizing the ecosystem is not the same job as actually building stuff, but it's still beneficial to all of us.
        iudqnolq 6y ago
        > HTTP, javascript and TLS have also shown that a sufficiently motivated set of actors can move the ecosystem forward. Absolutely. PGP could be decent. Unfortunately efail and sks[1] show it's actors aren't sufficiently motivated. [1] https://gist.github.com/rjhansen/f716c3ff4a7068b50f2d8896e54e4b7e https://gist.github.com/rjhansen/f716c3ff4a7068b50f2d8896e54...
    - forgotmypw17 6y ago
      The latter is preferrable because it uses a widely adopted and time-tested standard, which means another user can use their own special purpose app.
      - iudqnolq 6y ago
        That's the problem. You have n*m possible combinations of clients, leading to many opportunities for bugs, and everyone has to degrade to the lowest common denominator because you can't upgrade in lockstep.
        forgotmypw17 6y ago
        How is that a problem?
neolog 6y ago
If I want to do X, why not use the tool that's built for doing X?