Switching from GPG to Age

The out-of-band verification is for initial key enrollment, not every credential exchange. You verify the fingerprint once through a trusted channel, then use that verified key indefinitely without needing the trusted channel again. That's the entire value proposition: establish trust once, communicate securely many times.

Without this, you'd need out-of-band verification for every single credential exchange, which doesn't scale.

As for "PGP is trash"... That's a different argument entirely, and you've provided zero technical justification for it. If you have specific criticisms of PGP's cryptographic primitives, key management model, or implementation security, make them.

> but still there is a long lived secret a user must maintain somewhere

Of course. I'm not suggesting that there's no need to have long-lived private key material. But that does not require some thick GPG-keyring-style concept (especially one that includes both public and private key material). Something like a directory of private keys (like with SSH) fits the bill here and yet bears precious little resemblance to GPG's system.

> have a strategy for backup, rotation, discovery, validation, etc etc

Again, I see no reason to bake this stuff (I'll call it "identity management") deeply into the cryptosystem itself. Especially because different encryption use-cases have vastly different needs. The identity management needed for a one-time message exchange between humans shares little structural similarity to that needed for authenticating OS packages from multiple parties. These two use cases are almost entirely disjoint, I daresay. To the point that any effort to devise a shared abstraction will only muddy the waters since there is so little intrinsic similarity.

> What I take issue with is people recommending age or minisign or signing with ssh keys when all of these just pretend the problems PGP solves do not exist, and thus set people up to fail.

I can agree with this for sure. If you need these various features, then age et al. do not fit the bill.

On the other hand, in cases where these systems have adequate functionality or can be shimmed up by other systems, they're lightweight and easy for users to comprehend.

Take commit-signing with SSH keys to provide verification mediated by GitHub. Everyone (lol) knows how to generate and manage an SSH key. Easy enough to set up git for signing with that key. Then GitHub uses its own identity layer to show users what commits are verified and which aren't. From the user's perspective, it's super lightweight, easy. When it comes to cryptographic signatures with long-lived identities, it basically doesn't get easier than this.

Of course, that GitHub example misses some features, and isn't perfect. But it captures a lot of the value of signing with a bare minimum of error-prone work for the user.

Care to elaborate on this? How come using PGP insecurely is somehow more insecure than not using it at all? And what do you exactly mean by using it insecurely? Care to give me an example of this insecure use of PGP?

I think even brilliant cryptographers can be wrong, or acting on strong biases formed from a limited perspective. In this case I think they have not thought about personal cryptographic key management and how people use tools like PGP in the wild well enough.

An engineer coming from a corporate world where everyone is comfortable with a model of centralized backups, centralized identity, and centralized trust is going to have a very different perspective than say, a Linux distribution maintainer, or those maintaining they core backbone of the internet.

I am closer to the latter camp, and obviously have my own biases here, but in spite of them I package Age in stagex, and we support it in keyfork, just so people have choices. Choices are always a good thing.

That said, it is my opinion that age does not even begin to approach the threat model or use cases PGP solves for. It does one thing, and it does not even do that thing as well as PGP does in most situations I can think of.

Just because someone is experienced in cryptography does not mean they have had significant exposure to environments where decentralized identity and trust are a hard requirement and where no alternatives to PGP exist, and where there is no customer service or IT team to bail you out, which really changes how we tend to think about these problems.

In my experience cryptography engineers that work on decentralized open source systems like Tor, blockchains, Linux distributions, etc, tend to strongly favor solutions like PGP as not "good" but the "least bad" option to avoid any single point of trust or failure.

Those that have spent their careers in the proprietary FAANG world tend to support using solutions like Fulcio or sigstore and using OIDC to let a central party sign for you with "keyless signing", which to me, is total nonsense. I assume anything that I cannot verify the integrity of for myself to be compromised.

I think Filippo Valsorda has in fact thought pretty hard about the issues you're talking about, and that, by contrast, the track record of the PGP community on those same issues is pretty dismal.