Re: Question on Integrity of Sequoia-PGP Developers
Vincent Breitmoser via Gnupg-devel <[email protected]> Thu, 11 Sep 2025 17:27:49 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.encryption.gpg.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hey List and Matt, > It’s one thing to have varying implementations of a given standard. We > just can’t be having multiple standards surrounding the same thing. Well, that's what we ended up with. GnuPG has also been emitting LibrePGP packets by default for some years by now, so it's not just something that's coming soon, it's already here. And on the flip side, support of OpenPGP v6 is fairly complete in most big implementations and everyone is moving on to PQC, although none emit v6 by default yet as far as I'm aware. There are some comparison charts here: https://sequoia-pgp.gitlab.io/openpgp-interoperability-test-suite/results.html?q=v6#test-summary > But as an engineer, if I get in there and find out Koch was right > about LibrePGP and that that should’ve been the next version, but we > go end up ratifying the other one instead, I’m just going to rage quit To give you a starting point, there is a comparison of OpenPGP and LibrePGP from a technical and spec management perspective here: https://github.com/crypto-security-tools/OpenPGP-LibrePGP-comparison/blob/main/opgp-lpgp-comp.pdf Cheers - V _______________________________________________ Gnupg-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-devel