On 1/17/26 15:01, Rat Bag via Gnupg-users wrote:
[...]
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.
[...]
What prevents simply running GPG 2.x on an Eee PC or other recycled
low-spec hardware?
Yes, 2.x has higher system complexity, but why is that system complexity
unsuitable, especially on a machine running GNU/Linux, where (for
example) the entire $GNUPGHOME tree could be stored in a RAM filesystem
(and thus erased upon shutdown) or in a LUKS volume (and thus encrypted
at rest)?
-- Jacob
_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
