Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 12:01:22 +0100 From: ludo@....org (Ludovic Courtès) To: Marcus Brinkmann <marcus.brinkmann@...r-uni-bochum.de> Cc: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Re: Recommendations GnuPG-2 replacement Hi Marcus, Marcus Brinkmann <marcus.brinkmann@...r-uni-bochum.de> skribis: > I started neopg.io two months ago to provide a modern replacement for > GnuPG. It will go back to a single-binary architecture like gpg1 was, > but move forward on just about every other issue: > > * Written in C++ > * based on the Botan crypto library instead of libgcrypt > * typical library + CLI (with subcommands) architecture > * better testing (CI, static analysis) Given that you worked on GnuPG, can you give some background? It isn’t clear to me why using C++/Botan/CMake to give a “modern” feel (what does it mean?) will lead to “better” software (under which criteria?). The multiple-process design in GnuPG had clear justifications AFAIK—e.g., having ‘dirmngr’ and ‘gnupg-agent’ in separate address spaces makes sense from a security standpoint. Do you think these justifications no longer hold, or that the decisions were misguided? I’m also skeptical about “better testing” bit: GnuPG and libgcrypt are among the first pieces of software that crypto and security researchers look at, and they’re also the first ones to get fixes when new attack scenarios are devised. I’m sure you have a clear view on this but neopg.io doesn’t reflect that. Thanks, Ludo’.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.
Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ