3 ms·

> PGP isn't very good technology. What part of PGP precisely? I've read a lot of criticism of PGP but they were either focused on a specific (catastrophic) imp

> PGP isn't very good technology. What part of PGP precisely? I've read a lot of criticism of PGP but they were either focused on a specific (catastrophic) implementation such as GNUPG, or were really skeptical of usage by non-technical humans. I know quite a few people doing PGP email with Thunderbird and they're pretty happy with it. It's also very convenient that their GNOME-based Tails operating system has PGP sig verification enabled as context menu entry in the file manager, same for encryption/decryption. Basically, once you know what public/private keys are, you've got all you need for secure communications. Is that a bad thing? My only HUGE criticism of PGP is with the key servers. It's getting better now with WKD, OpenPGPCA, etc.. I'm really excited about the Sequoia project. From their blog/docs it appears all my criticisms of PGP are being addressed.

tialaramex 5y ago
When PGP was invented, a bunch of things we are now quite sure how to do either were experimental or hadn't been discovered. In some of those cases you can retro-fit to PGP, so e.g. you can use a nice elliptic curve signing primitive instead of RSA, you can do AES instead of IDEA. So far not too bad. But then in some cases what we became quite sure about is that PGP's principles/ assumptions are themselves wrong. For example, PGP is pretty sure a message ought to have a digital signature from the sender so you know who it's from. But that's wrong, now you're helping the recipient prove to everybody else what you sent them. That doesn't sound like "pretty good privacy" at all. If instead we do message integrity correctly we can assure the recipient that you wrote it, but since they could have forged that assurance they don't have proof you wrote it which they could show to anybody else. They could tell others what it says, but they could just as well make up any rumours they want. The worst of these problems is the Web of Trust. The Web of Trust can't work. It might work if everybody you know is a cryptographer and everybody they know is a cryptographer and so on. But it can't work in real life, and often in describing it people make revealing mistakes. Let me quote somebody else making such a mistake (not on HN) and then I'll reproduce part of my response to their mistake in answer: "How much do you trust guy #53 of 120 you met at FOSDEM? Do you remember how well you checked his ID?" I am 100% certain my mother is my mother, but I wouldn't trust her as far as I can throw her. And this is where the WoT breaks down. Your trust metric must reflect your confidence that these people will do their part correctly in the WoT, but even conscientious users often don't understand how to do their part correctly, so realistically almost everybody's "trust" indication for almost everybody should be zero. At which point it's not a "web" it's just a bunch of unconnected points.

tialaramex 5y ago

When PGP was invented, a bunch of things we are now quite sure how to do either were experimental or hadn't been discovered. In some of those cases you can retro-fit to PGP, so e.g. you can use a nice elliptic curve signing primitive instead of RSA, you can do AES instead of IDEA. So far not too bad. But then in some cases what we became quite sure about is that PGP's principles/ assumptions are themselves wrong. For example, PGP is pretty sure a message ought to have a digital signature from the sender so you know who it's from. But that's wrong, now you're helping the recipient prove to everybody else what you sent them. That doesn't sound like "pretty good privacy" at all. If instead we do message integrity correctly we can assure the recipient that you wrote it, but since they could have forged that assurance they don't have proof you wrote it which they could show to anybody else. They could tell others what it says, but they could just as well make up any rumours they want. The worst of these problems is the Web of Trust. The Web of Trust can't work. It might work if everybody you know is a cryptographer and everybody they know is a cryptographer and so on. But it can't work in real life, and often in describing it people make revealing mistakes. Let me quote somebody else making such a mistake (not on HN) and then I'll reproduce part of my response to their mistake in answer: "How much do you trust guy #53 of 120 you met at FOSDEM? Do you remember how well you checked his ID?" I am 100% certain my mother is my mother, but I wouldn't trust her as far as I can throw her. And this is where the WoT breaks down. Your trust metric must reflect your confidence that these people will do their part correctly in the WoT, but even conscientious users often don't understand how to do their part correctly, so realistically almost everybody's "trust" indication for almost everybody should be zero. At which point it's not a "web" it's just a bunch of unconnected points.