On 8/22/25 7:13 PM, Dale wrote: > That's not what I'm saying. Let's say you have a file that is plain, > not encrypted. Then you have the same file that is encrypted. One can > use the info from the not encrypted file to hack the encrypted one. The > keys have nothing to do with it. At least that is my understanding of > it. Like I said, if you are 100% sure, don't worry about it. Just send > some encrypted and some not. If no one can hack it, no problem. If > you're wrong tho and you are sharing info someone wants, well, you get > to keep the pieces.
This is a kind of odd paranoia, and in general it is advised that people who aren't cryptographers should refrain from making binding statements about how cryptography does or doesn't work. Better to say nothing -- or at least only say *questions* such as "is it possible?" -- rather than say something incorrect that causes a public panic. In this case you may be thinking of the general principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chosen-plaintext_attack But please do NOT go around assuming any given cryptographic scheme *is* vulnerable to all types of attacks. The reason why people use cryptography at all, is because good types exist that are safe to use. And please remember that the "s" in https is cryptography. The majority of any message in visiting your online banking, is known to attackers. Plainly, https is not vulnerable to such attacks -- do not presume to assume PGP based email is, without ***proof***. It is a simple and straightforward matter that sending a message to someone and hacking them by having them respond to it, is a *ludicrous* flaw in email, which is *all* about unknown people sending messages to you. Such downsides are perhaps considered acceptable for symmetric encryption where you don't expect anyone to be able to influence your messages unless they also have the secret key -- but better to use decent cryptography to begin with. -- Eli Schwartz
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
