3 ms·

I have made no false claims or implications that I am aware of. Mainly I was arguing at your implication that PGP is the wrong tool for any job as your link co

by lrvick 1y ago

I have made no false claims or implications that I am aware of. Mainly I was arguing at your implication that PGP is the wrong tool for any job as your link concluded. I don't doubt you or a lot of people could build something better, but nobody has yet, and I doubt any will get it as widely adopted and supported end to end for all the use cases PGP is used for today. PGP is here to stay, and thus must be maintained and improved. I don't see bike shedding about things that could have been done better historically in the spec itself as productive as there are no significant security problems with any of the active uses of PGP I use or am aware of in wide use today, if done with modern tools and with modern cipher defaults. I would not recommend generating keys with GnuPG today any more than I would recommend using Internet Explorer. Advising against old broken implementations is not the same thing as saying we should abandon an established widely used cryptographic identity standard for which no comparable alternatives exist. Especially when alternative tooling with reasonable secure defaults exists now. I doubt this discussion was productive for you or me, but hopefully it will be productive for others reading trying to make sense of their choices and tradeoffs. I do appreciate people like you keeping me honest on this stuff regardless.

tptacek 1y ago
"Nobody has built something better" is not responsive to the argument that "PGP is fundamentally outmoded, not just one implementation of it".
- johnisgood 1y ago
  Are you arguing that OpenPGP itself is fundamentally flawed, or only GnuPG (which is one implementation of OpenPGP, Sequoia is another)?
  - tptacek 1y ago
    That OpenPGP itself is fundamentally flawed (it clearly is, and my interlocutor here has conceded that.)
    - johnisgood 1y ago
      I believe lrvick said that the spec isn't perfect but works fine in practice, and advises against old broken implementations of it. We will see. In any case, imperfection does not imply fundamental flaw. I might have missed it. Have you elaborated on why you think OpenPGP is fundamentally flawed? Do you know of any GPG replacements (or rather, OpenPGP replacements)? I want encryption, signing, key management, email integration (optional), multiple recipients, subkeys, revocation certificates, web of trust (even if unused), smart card support, and so on.
      - tptacek 1y ago
        "Works fine in practice" is not responsive to "outmoded fundamentally, not just by one implementation". That commenter is substituting their own rooting interest in a particular outcome with a straightforward descriptive claim about the standard.
        johnisgood 1y ago
        I would appreciate it if you answered to the rest of my comment. It may be quite useful.
        tptacek 1y ago
        I will not, because I joined this subthread to make a specific point (that the other commenter was simply wrong that the archaisms in PGP/OpenPGP are a mere consequence of GnuPG and avoidable by avoiding GnuPG), and this whole subthread has been an exercise in avoiding that point and switching to other more tractable arguments. I'm sorry, but I'm not interested.
        johnisgood 1y ago
        Cool, so we got two people here who kept saying "PGP is shit", but when asked for an alternative, they weasel out with "no thanks", or "I will not [say]"? Yeah, okay. Got it. I hope you realize it weakens everything you have said. Hell, there is nothing to weaken to begin with! > (that the other commenter was simply wrong that the archaisms in PGP/OpenPGP are a mere consequence of GnuPG and avoidable by avoiding GnuPG) Didn't read it like that though, it read like "OpenPGP is shit", and I could quote you where you are claiming exactly that: > outmoded fundamentally, not just by one implementation You said this, about OpenPGP. Welp.
johnisgood 1y ago
> I would not recommend generating keys with GnuPG today any more than I would recommend using Internet Explorer. Would you rather recommend Sequoia-PGP or what?

by lrvick 1y ago

tptacek 1y ago

"Nobody has built something better" is not responsive to the argument that "PGP is fundamentally outmoded, not just one implementation of it".

johnisgood 1y ago
Are you arguing that OpenPGP itself is fundamentally flawed, or only GnuPG (which is one implementation of OpenPGP, Sequoia is another)?
- tptacek 1y ago
  That OpenPGP itself is fundamentally flawed (it clearly is, and my interlocutor here has conceded that.)
  - johnisgood 1y ago
    I believe lrvick said that the spec isn't perfect but works fine in practice, and advises against old broken implementations of it. We will see. In any case, imperfection does not imply fundamental flaw. I might have missed it. Have you elaborated on why you think OpenPGP is fundamentally flawed? Do you know of any GPG replacements (or rather, OpenPGP replacements)? I want encryption, signing, key management, email integration (optional), multiple recipients, subkeys, revocation certificates, web of trust (even if unused), smart card support, and so on.
    - tptacek 1y ago
      "Works fine in practice" is not responsive to "outmoded fundamentally, not just by one implementation". That commenter is substituting their own rooting interest in a particular outcome with a straightforward descriptive claim about the standard.
      - johnisgood 1y ago
        I would appreciate it if you answered to the rest of my comment. It may be quite useful.
        tptacek 1y ago
        I will not, because I joined this subthread to make a specific point (that the other commenter was simply wrong that the archaisms in PGP/OpenPGP are a mere consequence of GnuPG and avoidable by avoiding GnuPG), and this whole subthread has been an exercise in avoiding that point and switching to other more tractable arguments. I'm sorry, but I'm not interested.
        johnisgood 1y ago
        Cool, so we got two people here who kept saying "PGP is shit", but when asked for an alternative, they weasel out with "no thanks", or "I will not [say]"? Yeah, okay. Got it. I hope you realize it weakens everything you have said. Hell, there is nothing to weaken to begin with! > (that the other commenter was simply wrong that the archaisms in PGP/OpenPGP are a mere consequence of GnuPG and avoidable by avoiding GnuPG) Didn't read it like that though, it read like "OpenPGP is shit", and I could quote you where you are claiming exactly that: > outmoded fundamentally, not just by one implementation You said this, about OpenPGP. Welp.

johnisgood 1y ago

> I would not recommend generating keys with GnuPG today any more than I would recommend using Internet Explorer. Would you rather recommend Sequoia-PGP or what?