▲ | stackghost 2 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
"Github supports GnuPG signatures" does not contradict the statement "GnuPG is trash". I will not engage further, it's obvious you are not interested in honest discussion of the technical merits. | |||||||||||||||||
▲ | tapete 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> I will not engage further, it's obvious you are not interested in honest discussion of the technical merits. Well you are neither, all you do is throw unobjective flames around ("gnupg is trash") and post various claims about bad security without backing them up, implicitly demanding that other people do the leg work of disproving your accusations against the GNU project. Are you working for Apple by any chance? | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
▲ | CarpaDorada 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
The issue is mostly with git itself, e.g. take a look at
to see something like:
You can view an example of the structure of this ascii-armored signature here <https://cirw.in/gpg-decoder/#-----BEGIN%20PGP%20SIGNATURE---...>.You can add a patch to git to support more signature types than just OpenPGP. You may then be able to move mountains and get GitHub/others to join in the validation. Finally, if you can find bugs/exploits in GnuPG, you should report them and you will definitely get credit and recognition for them. They are not trivial to find. | |||||||||||||||||
|