There exists no set of adversaries common to all users.
Of course not. But there is a sub-sets of users that do share *a "class" of adversaries*, one that was - for whatever reason - historically not considered possible or practical or proper to protect the users of GnuPG from. The way I read Laurie-Singer paper, protection from such adversaries was impossible on a "general purpose system". Nobody (and I suspect authors themselves) seriously considered building the device that they proposed as a solution. But for a *subset of users*, needing only a *subset of functionality*, such devices are available, in quantity and at (practically) no cost. All that is missing is "1.4 Renato". The work required to exorcise the 2.x gumbo of (to them) useless features and cut down WOT flotsam to size is not at all extraordinary. And no, I am not (as was suggested above) "literally trying to put the devs on a guilt trip..."; (if this is how I came across, I apologize unreservedly). I am just politely asking, and suggesting a *growing* set of users would benefit. It would be entirely possible to take 1.4 codebase, clean up a few things, backport some (very few) fundamentals and Gpg 1.4 would leave the life-support and be, indeed, "re-born". When a mailing list sub-thread dwindles down to two participants, it is high time to consider the patience of the wider list membership... R.B. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
