Re: PK-Encrypt-only
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 08:33:07AM -0700, Kurt Fitzner wrote: > I am contemplating a change to my GnuPG Explorer Extension, but I need > some background information. > > I know that encrypting a file without signing it is commonly done with > symmetrical encryption. My question is, do people commonly use GnuPG to > encrypt a file without signing it using PK-encryption? > > Personally, I don't think this would be very common at all. I mean, I > can come up with conceptual reasons why someone might want to encrypt a > file to someone else's key without signing the file, but in practice I > would think it would be very rare. > > I would appreciate knowing if this is something that is commonly done, > or if it is very rare. This is routinely done when file is encrypted for storage - instead of using password which might get forgotten and is problematic for shring, file is encrypted with keys of persons that are allowed to decrypt it, then stored. This is done for files like backups, source code archives, etc. Alex -- mors ab alto 0x46399138 ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: PK-Encrypt-only
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:33:07 -0700, Kurt Fitzner said: > I know that encrypting a file without signing it is commonly done with > symmetrical encryption. My question is, do people commonly use GnuPG to > encrypt a file without signing it using PK-encryption? In email I use it when I have no access to my signing key. On a more regular basis I use it to encrypt senstive parts of a backups as well as confidential information stored in databases. Salam-Shalom, Werner ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: PK-Encrypt-only
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Kurt Fitzner wrote: I am contemplating a change to my GnuPG Explorer Extension, but I need some background information. I know that encrypting a file without signing it is commonly done with symmetrical encryption. My question is, do people commonly use GnuPG to encrypt a file without signing it using PK-encryption? Personally, I don't think this would be very common at all. I mean, I can come up with conceptual reasons why someone might want to encrypt a file to someone else's key without signing the file, but in practice I would think it would be very rare. I would appreciate knowing if this is something that is commonly done, or if it is very rare. = done all the time in email for, um, (somewhat) plausible deniability. encrypting without signing can also be useful in automated encryption applications where it would not be beneficial to leave a signing key laying around. things such as writing data to a database or sending out an encrypted email can benefit from public key encryption; if the server is successfully attacked, the public key is compromised and can not aid the attacker in recovering encrypted data. adding a signing key (that's available to an automated application, and also an attacker) only adds a false sense of security as to the message's authenticity. -- ...atom _ PGP key - http://atom.smasher.org/pgp.txt 762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808 - "According to the Environmental Protection Agency, factory farming pollutes U.S. waterways more than all industrial sources combined." -- PETA ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: PK-Encrypt-only
Kurt Fitzner wrote: I know that encrypting a file without signing it is commonly done with symmetrical encryption. My question is, do people commonly use GnuPG to encrypt a file without signing it using PK-encryption? Well that's totally up to your personal taste =) Personally, I don't think this would be very common at all. I mean, I can come up with conceptual reasons why someone might want to encrypt a file to someone else's key without signing the file, but in practice I would think it would be very rare. I would appreciate knowing if this is something that is commonly done, or if it is very rare. Well of course it is more secure if you sign it, too. And it should not cost that much Chris. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
PK-Encrypt-only
I am contemplating a change to my GnuPG Explorer Extension, but I need some background information. I know that encrypting a file without signing it is commonly done with symmetrical encryption. My question is, do people commonly use GnuPG to encrypt a file without signing it using PK-encryption? Personally, I don't think this would be very common at all. I mean, I can come up with conceptual reasons why someone might want to encrypt a file to someone else's key without signing the file, but in practice I would think it would be very rare. I would appreciate knowing if this is something that is commonly done, or if it is very rare. Kurt. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
