11–20 of 40 posts
If you have gnupg installed, emacs can just open foo.org.gpg files directly. It decrypts on load and re-encrypts on save. Probably you would get better answers about Emacs on https://emacs.stackexchange.com/ or https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/ .
I’m aware of the wiki article but that’s not any official position. In the very least anyone can edit that wiki.
come ask on libera in #emacs
The #emacs channel on Libera Chat (irc.libera.chat:6697) is indeed a very friendly and fun channel. For those you are new to IRC and want to take a quick glance at the channel without choosing clients and configuring them, here is a web-based interface to connect to the #emacs channel: https://web.libera.chat/#emacs Here is the Matrix bridge for it accessible via Element's web interface: https://app.element.io/#/room…
EasyPG is very mature in Emacs, makes using GPG a breeze and is integrated really well. Age doesn't even support signing and has no Emacs integration.
>Debian abandoning it for signing packages and it's general lack of usage. This is not true. There was a proposal near the start of the year. That proposal has been almost entirely ignored. Would age provide any advantage over GnuPG to make it worth the bother to switch to a new message format? * https://articles.59.ca/doku.php?id=pgpfan:agevspgp
There is a live proposal right now, by one of the Debian apt developers, who was just here a couple days ago talking about it. I agree, it's not clear what's happening yet, but signify-style apt signatures are not a past-tense thing right now. I don't want to reopen a can of worms on that very weird age vs. PGP thing you wrote (Debian isn't going to use age) but again, I think you should correct it, because it openly…
If you are doing FEC then you need to decide how many bits you are going to be able to correct. That determines the amount of redundancy you need. Media problems generally come in physical media sized chunks, often adjacent. Hundreds, thousands or millions of bits might be involved. FEC is not a magic bullet for data loss, particularly in this case. Usually the best you can do is to recover the good parts and age deliberately prevents you from doing that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a live proposal right now, by one of the Debian apt developers, who was just here a couple days ago talking about it. I agree, it's not clear what's happening yet, but signify-style apt signatures are not a past-tense thing right now. I don't want to reopen a can of worms on that very weird age vs. PGP thing you wrote (Debian isn't going to use age) but again, I think you should correct it, because it openly…
The proposal has no place to go at this point. It may come back in the future, but right at the moment it is effectively dead. If you are doing FEC then you need to decide how many bits you are going to be able to correct. That determines the amount of redundancy you need. Media problems generally come in physical media sized chunks, often adjacent. Hundreds, thousands or millions of bits might be involved. FEC is no…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The proposal has no place to go at this point. It may come back in the future, but right at the moment it is effectively dead. If you are doing FEC then you need to decide how many bits you are going to be able to correct. That determines the amount of redundancy you need. Media problems generally come in physical media sized chunks, often adjacent. Hundreds, thousands or millions of bits might be involved. FEC is no…
You can run chacha20-poly1305 decryption without verifying the MAC, and accept that an adversary can accurately bitflip any and all bits they want. Normal tools don't have command line flags for that, but a recovery tool can do that no problem using the same exact code as age.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can run chacha20-poly1305 decryption without verifying the MAC, and accept that an adversary can accurately bitflip any and all bits they want. Normal tools don't have command line flags for that, but a recovery tool can do that no problem using the same exact code as age.
If that were true, would that then mean that age would be malleable by flipping around and deleting and duplicating blocks? How does it ensure continuity without preventing recovery of blocks subsequent to the bad one? I have not dug into the age code to figure out how the encryption works so I am guessing here.
I think you should probably dig into the age code before writing posts about why PGP is better than age. The question of whether adversaries can modify age messages in transit is a pretty basic one.
If you have gnupg installed, emacs can just open foo.org.gpg files directly. It decrypts on load and re-encrypts on save. Probably you would get better answers about Emacs on https://emacs.stackexchange.com/ or https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/ .
>Debian abandoning it for signing packages and it's general lack of usage. This is not true. There was a proposal near the start of the year. That proposal has been almost entirely ignored. Would age provide any advantage over GnuPG to make it worth the bother to switch to a new message format? * https://articles.59.ca/doku.php?id=pgpfan:agevspgp
'age' is still quite beta, so not sure if it's entirely worth the switch. But yeah I guess the long-term archival is something that I hope to have.