Replies

• 
  Sigg3 8 years ago

  @Ant I'm going to review the issue as soon as my home office is back up (currently in boxes) :)

  • 1
• 
  Ant 8 years ago

  blast! its a typo, that should read "should not be an issue" but to be fair there is a whole infrastructure for public keys ( mit pgp key server and others ) so may be some effort to essentially replicate that. although i have heard some arguments for not using those public key servers.
  What say you ?

  • 1
• 
  Sigg3 8 years ago

  @Ant, I am confused. Why is it a problem to store public keys?

  • 1
• 
  Joe 8 years ago

  @ant I completely agree. I think a lot of services get stick even though for being just as encrypted but also storing/generating keys. TBH PGP is something you can do at any time if you wish. I think we should just make it easier on here and provide a good tutorial with sane methods

  • 0
• 
  Ant 8 years ago

  I dont think we really want to be storing the persons key. This sticks a massive target on us in the first instance. allowing the post of a enc. blob should be fine and we can ID the message as encrypted etc
  Storing the persons public key should be an issue. But we *must* store the long format key id and not the short ( see the recent scare re torvalds signing key as for why )

  • 1
• 
  Joe 8 years ago

  @sigg3 good idea. Will have a think whilst away and run a plan past you 😀

  • 1
• 
  Sigg3 8 years ago

  @Joe Just add a ticker box below pm message input "encrypt". If no pub key is setup at sender and/or recipient, refer to a simple tutorial. Perhaps also add links to generally trusted key rings, or urge a pjuu specific key pair..?

  • 1
• 
  Joe 8 years ago

  *just thinking* we could identify a post as being encrypted some how and allow it as a special case? I can't image many users will be writing messages which are in the same format.

  • 1
• 
  Joe 8 years ago

  @ant, @sigg3 I think the cap could be easily lifted for the sake of PGP. Especially on Private messages it wouldn't add that much over head the extra size of post. I think we would have to make it very clear we wouldn't be able to help users who lose there private key. TBH this would be a rather manual process for users as having anything to do with the private key would defeat the point but letting people use it would be helpful.

  • 1
• 
  Sigg3 8 years ago

  @Ant It would be large, but not to its proper recipient. Since we're talking PM, it wouldn't flood any public channels either. (AFAIK #pgp is the tech and #gpg is an implementation.)

  • 1
• 
  Ant 8 years ago

  a message pushed through [G|P]GP would end up being quite large you may only be able to get a small message in to a 500 Char's
  like really small
  a sig alone would be quite large compared with the message

  • 2
• 
  Joe 8 years ago

  Haha ROT14 😀 at least I could encrypt directly in Vim. @sigg3 I can't really see a reason we couldn't add helpers for PGP in to PMs. Realistically we could also add them to general posts to make it easier.

  • 1
• 
  Ant 8 years ago

  NO ONE EXPECTS ....ROT14 !!

  • 2
• 
  Bandie 8 years ago

  rot13 encryption!!!!!+#@@

  • 3
• 
  Sigg3 8 years ago

  Would be nice if we could have #PGP support. Even if it's only a "my public key" page attached to the profile it would help adoption.

  • 3