age - simple encryption tool age-encryption.org

Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of gmkarl at gmail.com
Thu Jan 27 01:08:40 PST 2022


I received this private reply from you that doesn't look right and
ignores the encrypted message in the same email.

On 1/27/22, grarpamp <grarpamp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/23/22, k <gmkarl at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Receiving an encrypted message doesn't indicate
>> the sender is the same
>> person who encrypted previous messages at all
>
> If sender included a context proof, a psk, or a chain
> inside each subsequent msg for the receiver it would.
>
>> or that the message was
>> even made in one unit by one person
>
> A good decrypt seems to be one "unit", and no tool can prove
> what was behind the senders "unit", could be duress or hack.
>
>> others could also encrypt a hash tto this key, since it's public.
>
> Yes it's silly, yet who knows what their model might be.

This is maybe the part that looks most wrong. What are you talking abour?

>
>> Curious what norms exist for using signify/minisgn.
>> Seems formats are kind of left up to the user.
>
> What usage exist? OpenBSD uses it.
> Search signify / minisign for more.

By this I meant, how do I send you a signed message?


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list