3 ms·

> I suspect this was a state actor funded operation, for this has effectively, and significantly reduced the usefulness of PGP/GNUPG. If it was, they did us al

> I suspect this was a state actor funded operation, for this has effectively, and significantly reduced the usefulness of PGP/GNUPG. If it was, they did us all a favour, because PGP as means of encrypting emails is a steaming pile of garbage, as it requires both, client support, and the counterparty to have the same OPSEC as you (e.g. not just forwarding the email unencrypted to someone else) Email was never meant to be encrypted, and the existing implementations (including S/MIME) suck for this exact reason. And the worst thing is that it’s simply not possible to make it work.

thaumasiotes 3y ago
> PGP as means of encrypting emails is a steaming pile of garbage, as it requires [...] the counterparty to have the same OPSEC as you (e.g. not just forwarding the email unencrypted to someone else) All encrypted communication protocols have this requirement. And all of them will in the future. By definition, you need the counterparty to be able to decrypt your message, which means you're always vulnerable to them forwarding the unencrypted message to anyone they want.
- sgjohnson 3y ago
  > which means you're always vulnerable to them forwarding the unencrypted message to anyone they want. email makes this trivial.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    No more trivial than any other method. Once you have the plaintext, you can send copies to whoever you want, by whatever means you want.
b112 3y ago
HTML support client side, and required libraries are crazy complex compared to gpg integration. Yet that was done, and never meant to be. Same for images inline, and the idea of attachments was an add-on. Other examples abound. While I don't use html in my emails, it's effectively a standard now. So much so, that I have to prod some corporations to fix their stuff. My point is, the "email was never meant" ship sailed decades ago. Change happens. And there is no way to encrypt anything, ever, and send it to someone, who can't see it, and then copy it and send to others. A person can take a screen shot, or just take a phone and take a pic of the screen! So even if it's not simple, this problem is a non-solve, because if a human can read it, it can be copied to others. Which means, I do not believe your criticism on this point is valid.
master-lincoln 3y ago
The state actors did us a favor by making the most widely used email encryption scheme less useful? I must assume you are an opponent of privacy

thaumasiotes 3y ago

> PGP as means of encrypting emails is a steaming pile of garbage, as it requires [...] the counterparty to have the same OPSEC as you (e.g. not just forwarding the email unencrypted to someone else) All encrypted communication protocols have this requirement. And all of them will in the future. By definition, you need the counterparty to be able to decrypt your message, which means you're always vulnerable to them forwarding the unencrypted message to anyone they want.

sgjohnson 3y ago
> which means you're always vulnerable to them forwarding the unencrypted message to anyone they want. email makes this trivial.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  No more trivial than any other method. Once you have the plaintext, you can send copies to whoever you want, by whatever means you want.

b112 3y ago

HTML support client side, and required libraries are crazy complex compared to gpg integration. Yet that was done, and never meant to be. Same for images inline, and the idea of attachments was an add-on. Other examples abound. While I don't use html in my emails, it's effectively a standard now. So much so, that I have to prod some corporations to fix their stuff. My point is, the "email was never meant" ship sailed decades ago. Change happens. And there is no way to encrypt anything, ever, and send it to someone, who can't see it, and then copy it and send to others. A person can take a screen shot, or just take a phone and take a pic of the screen! So even if it's not simple, this problem is a non-solve, because if a human can read it, it can be copied to others. Which means, I do not believe your criticism on this point is valid.

master-lincoln 3y ago

The state actors did us a favor by making the most widely used email encryption scheme less useful? I must assume you are an opponent of privacy