-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Robert J. Hansen escribió: > Faramir wrote: >> Well, you have always said any algo in GPG is safe enough to use...
> First, I've said the algorithms are safe enough to use. I've never said > GnuPG's implementation of them is correct and error-free. There's a > _big_ difference between saying "3DES is a trusted algorithm" and saying > "GnuPG correctly implements 3DES." Ok, I get the point... ... > Second, please don't trust a word I say. Seriously. I make a ton of > mistakes every single day. I might be making one right now. Do your > own research, find out facts for yourself. Well, I have seen what you have said, and what other users of the list say, and I form my opinion based on that. Since I don't want to rely on Wikipedia for information about GPG, I think this list is the best source of information about GPG I can find. Since I lack the knowledge to check things by myself, I'll have to rely in what other people think about security. > My quibbles are not with GnuPG. My quibbles are with the OpenPGP spec. > I think GnuPG is the best implementation of OpenPGP out there right now. Well, I just know about 2 implementations, and I am not going to use PGP... Anyway, GPG has never crashed in my PC, and considering I use Windows... Best Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJJeqVQAAoJEMV4f6PvczxA7rsIAJyKE0CSw+bkjHeZW9cAk327 8RAYb3YwLhJR7kq2kgTtckpameYaIwdexXuEOQ4mnWGbP0DUmWRhsOD3mFwPVq/s hOm49QNAOoH5yxVNuxsLHG1nGu+uCj13pRu0AUmVRh1CHQ+bS0fpgI6zUoI8ZvlQ 8sv+Gmc6vzveuz9gyvEIswJb8cQIelcH4l7fuLxkTbqL72GAWAy411QfadAnaWVc YkvbOIbjedaWMpqFuHkpErMHwObXDI3KdqGhXRwPnGkI9spCX+I9GfJDhEuXwXUZ tRmPbdIv+Eh4rvORtErnKpMY+vC4AHPjygCk+cynJUKkSIrYH2d/gNpaCWUxSNk= =l8Nf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
