This article claims that PGP is dead. Is it really though? I checked EFAIL mitigation page, and nowhere does it support their claims about the tech being dead? And if it is so insecure as claimed by the article, then why is it still being used to sign Git commits or encrypt emails even today? Why did Skiff conveniently ignore the part to inform the reader that the standard was being updated?
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn’t great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don’t promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
- 0 users online
- 57 users / day
- 383 users / week
- 1.5K users / month
- 5.7K users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 2.45K Posts
- 57.9K Comments
- Modlog
“Keys can be stolen or hacked”. Assuming that an adversary gains access to your user account on your local computer? Well, there is no messaging protocol that will “protect” you and your data when an adversary has unrestricted access to your user account.
I am not sure for whom this article was written. “It’s hard to exchange keys” is Computer Security 101. That’s how public-key cryptography without a centeralized PKI works. The only valid argument against PGP I could recognize here is the fact that PGP provides no forward secrecy.