3 ms·
Well, I was only quoting the article, but it sounds like he has a good point that the protocol doesn't support forward secrecy. I also tend to trust his judgmen
by scintill76 12y ago
Well, I was only quoting the article, but it sounds like he has a good point that the protocol doesn't support forward secrecy. I also tend to trust his judgment that it's too complicated, and/or the complication adds little value for "normal" users. I guess some of this can be isolated as an app/API problem rather than protocol, as you say.
- lmm 12y agoPerfect forward secrecy is of course better than not, but I'm not convinced it actually helps a lot for realistic threat models. It means that when you utterly screw up and reveal today's treason you won't also be revealing last week's treason - but for someone who's using crypto for serious reasons, how often is it that last week's message would get you in trouble and today's message is innocuous? Would a ground-up rewrite of OpenPGP have PFS? Of course. Is the functionality important enough to justify a new protocol? Not on its own, IMO.
- lmm 12y agoFollow-up: on more thinking, I don't think it's possible at all without compromising important properties of GPG.