4 ms·

They partnered with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohde_%26_Schwarz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohde_%26_Schwarz - so basically GnuPG is now funded by milita

They partnered with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohde_%26_Schwarz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohde_%26_Schwarz - so basically GnuPG is now funded by military auxiliaries…

southerntofu 5y ago
I am strongly anti-militaristic, but i'm glad if such horror has to exist some funds end up in FLOSS projects that directly benefit the general public (not some random FLOSS project that only makes sense for the military) instead of always the same proprietary software vendors who are quite comfy with the whole military industrial complex (like Thales).
inshadows 5y ago
Vote with your wallet.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  If the military wants something, and you want the same thing, is that a problem?
  - dspillett 5y ago
    The concern many have with military involvement in encryption and other security standards is that while they want for themselves exactly what we want for ourselves, they have an internal conflict of interests due to the fact that they want a bit of the exact opposite for other actors¹ which, if those concerns win out and they have the influence to force through or block changes, this could lead security issues² that potentially affect you or I. [1] They don't want the enemy (whoever that happens to be at the time) to be able to keep secrets as securely as they want to keep their own secrets. [2] An accidental backdoor or side-channel vulnerability not fixed nor mitigations made known publicly, because it is useful once discovered and they have mitigations to protect their use, for instance.
    - southerntofu 5y ago
      That's why it's a good thing it's a FLOSS solution. Despite a track record of bad code and security, GPG has always been good-willed, and has progressed over the years. For sure having more eyes/resources on the code can only help. Also the recent Sequoia PGP project can prove to be an inspiration for further improvements.
      - dspillett 5y ago
        Agreed, I was mainly responding to what seemed to be a more open “why could it be a problem that a military organisation is involved?” question. And as other recent issues highlight, open to many eyeballs does not necessarily imply completely robust and secure code.
tpm 5y ago
It's not funded by Rohde&Schwarz. Probably they partnered because both products are used by German governmental agencies and have to work together.
varjag 5y ago
Uh, they do sell military radios but it's far from their only product range..
RF_Savage 5y ago
Rohde&Schwarz is better known for their test equipment. Think oscilloscopes, spectrum analyzers and signal generators. They also sell massive amounts of production line testers for cellphones. They are one of the big 3 in this field along with Anritsu and Keysight.

They partnered with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohde_%26_Schwarz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohde_%26_Schwarz - so basically GnuPG is now funded by military auxiliaries…

southerntofu 5y ago

I am strongly anti-militaristic, but i'm glad if such horror has to exist some funds end up in FLOSS projects that directly benefit the general public (not some random FLOSS project that only makes sense for the military) instead of always the same proprietary software vendors who are quite comfy with the whole military industrial complex (like Thales).

inshadows 5y ago

Vote with your wallet.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
If the military wants something, and you want the same thing, is that a problem?
- dspillett 5y ago
  The concern many have with military involvement in encryption and other security standards is that while they want for themselves exactly what we want for ourselves, they have an internal conflict of interests due to the fact that they want a bit of the exact opposite for other actors¹ which, if those concerns win out and they have the influence to force through or block changes, this could lead security issues² that potentially affect you or I. [1] They don't want the enemy (whoever that happens to be at the time) to be able to keep secrets as securely as they want to keep their own secrets. [2] An accidental backdoor or side-channel vulnerability not fixed nor mitigations made known publicly, because it is useful once discovered and they have mitigations to protect their use, for instance.
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    That's why it's a good thing it's a FLOSS solution. Despite a track record of bad code and security, GPG has always been good-willed, and has progressed over the years. For sure having more eyes/resources on the code can only help. Also the recent Sequoia PGP project can prove to be an inspiration for further improvements.
    - dspillett 5y ago
      Agreed, I was mainly responding to what seemed to be a more open “why could it be a problem that a military organisation is involved?” question. And as other recent issues highlight, open to many eyeballs does not necessarily imply completely robust and secure code.

tpm 5y ago

It's not funded by Rohde&Schwarz. Probably they partnered because both products are used by German governmental agencies and have to work together.

varjag 5y ago

Uh, they do sell military radios but it's far from their only product range..

RF_Savage 5y ago

Rohde&Schwarz is better known for their test equipment. Think oscilloscopes, spectrum analyzers and signal generators. They also sell massive amounts of production line testers for cellphones. They are one of the big 3 in this field along with Anritsu and Keysight.