Re: Gpg 1.4 Renato

On 1/17/26 15:01, Rat Bag via Gnupg-users wrote:
> [...]
>
> The way I read Laurie-Singer paper, protection from such
> adversaries was impossible on a "general purpose system".
> Nobody (and I suspect authors themselves) seriously
> considered building the device that they proposed as a
> solution. But for a *subset of users*, needing only a
> *subset of functionality*, such devices are available,
> in quantity and at (practically) no cost.
>
> [...]


What prevents simply running GPG 2.x on an Eee PC or other recycled 
low-spec hardware?

Yes, 2.x has higher system complexity, but why is that system complexity 
unsuitable, especially on a machine running GNU/Linux, where (for 
example) the entire $GNUPGHOME tree could be stored in a RAM filesystem 
(and thus erased upon shutdown) or in a LUKS volume (and thus encrypted 
at rest)?


-- Jacob