oss-security - Re: Re: Recommendations GnuPG-2 replacement

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87r2s5xz3x.fsf@gnu.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 12:01:22 +0100
From: ludo@....org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Marcus Brinkmann <marcus.brinkmann@...r-uni-bochum.de>
Cc: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: Recommendations GnuPG-2 replacement

Hi Marcus,

Marcus Brinkmann <marcus.brinkmann@...r-uni-bochum.de> skribis:

> I started neopg.io two months ago to provide a modern replacement for
> GnuPG.  It will go back to a single-binary architecture like gpg1 was,
> but move forward on just about every other issue:
>
> * Written in C++
> * based on the Botan crypto library instead of libgcrypt
> * typical library + CLI (with subcommands) architecture
> * better testing (CI, static analysis)

Given that you worked on GnuPG, can you give some background?  It isn’t
clear to me why using C++/Botan/CMake to give a “modern” feel (what does
it mean?) will lead to “better” software (under which criteria?).

The multiple-process design in GnuPG had clear justifications
AFAIK—e.g., having ‘dirmngr’ and ‘gnupg-agent’ in separate address
spaces makes sense from a security standpoint.  Do you think these
justifications no longer hold, or that the decisions were misguided?

I’m also skeptical about “better testing” bit: GnuPG and libgcrypt are
among the first pieces of software that crypto and security researchers
look at, and they’re also the first ones to get fixes when new attack
scenarios are devised.

I’m sure you have a clear view on this but neopg.io doesn’t reflect
that.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.