▲ | upofadown 6 days ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Future secrecy? PGP does multirecipients natively, so any restrictions there would be in the XMPP client. I have actually tried out PGP over XMPP and is was nice once it was set up. Absolutely no state. If the message somehow gets to you it just works. Sucked when the keys expired though: * https://articles.59.ca/doku.php?id=pgpfan:expire PGP support on XMPP isn't really that great. Forward secrecy might be a nice addition, even if it was semi-manual. There are compatibility problems between clients for encrypted media. You don't end up with an always encrypted archive like you do with email, but that could be considered an inherent weakness of instant messaging... | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | maqp 6 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
>Future secrecy? Meaning --if-- when your keys get compromised the system recovers. PGP lacks even forward secrecy, meaning key compromise alone allows retrospective decryption of every message you've ever sent. OTR fixed that in... ...2004 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1029179.1029200 Using PGP for secure communication in 2025 when you have option to use stateful E2EE over stuff like Signal is just bonkers. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|