4 ms·
So you think that one of the big problems with gpg is that it "is not usable by mortals" and that"having an implementation similar to OpenSSL...would be a big s
by dfc 14y ago
So you think that one of the big problems with gpg is that it "is not usable by mortals" and that"having an implementation similar to OpenSSL...would be a big step forward"?
I have never heard anyone say it was easy for mortals to use openssl in a safe and secure manner. Between openssl and gpg, gpg is hands down the better way for mortals or professional geeks to exchange information securely. For starters take a look at what is required to generate a key in gpg:
$ gpg --gen-key
A user can accept the defaults and have a decent crypto setup relatively easily. How do you think that compares to setting up openssl?
- zobzu 14y ago"having an implementation similar to OpenSSL...would be a big step forward" That made my day.
- xradionut 14y ago"gpg is hands down the better way for mortals..." Snort! How many clients/friends/coworkers have you had to explain PGP, GPG, public keys or just compressing a file with a password to? For us semi-interested cypto/security aware geeks, it's not difficult. Easier than learning the details about git or picking up Erlang. But for the normal user/client/manager it's like speaking Latin or the understanding Alchemy economics in Skyrim. PKI/GPG is one of those things that falls outside of their give-a-shit enough to understand circle.
- Spooky23 14y agoI use applications every day that leverage OpenSSL libraries, and would have no idea unless I felt obliged to find out. That's the whole point. GPG is an in your face security product. I've used GPG for years and love it. But even I have to jump through hoops that are not trivial to deal with -- I use GPG smartcards for a few applications, and while its great when it works, it often doesn't. I can't use it on OSX 10.8 right now, for example.