[PATCH] doc: elaborate on --default-cache-ttl and --max-cache-ttl
hw42 at ipsumj.de
Thu Oct 30 16:16:40 CET 2014
Am Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:48:30 -0200
schrieb Martin Ichilevici de Oliveira <iomartin at iomartin.net>:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 03:22:31PM +0100, Werner Koch wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:32, iomartin at iomartin.net said:
> > > I'm sorry (and I don't mean to be annoying), but I still don't
> > > understand why gnupg doesn't support infinite ttl? Is it by
> > > design or
> > What is the use case case for this? I can't see one except to work
> > around a bogus security policy. If you do not have a need for a
> > passphrase you should not use a passphrase for the protection of
> > your secret key.
One use case would be if you don't want to store it unencrypted on disk
- but in keep in in RAM is ok (this works of course only if you don't
use hibernation or similar).
> I see what you mean.
> Personally, I use gnupg mostly for signing email, and once in a while
> for encrypting it. I don't want to enter my passphrase every so often,
> but at the same time I didn't like the idea of using no passhprase at
> Given that I usually reboot my computer around once a week, I found it
> to be a good compromise (in my case), to enter it once and then not
> worrying. I achieved that with a high ttl, but this just feels clumsy
> to me. Maybe that's what you'll call a bogus security policy - and you
> might be right - but it just seems cleaner to use -1 instead.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
More information about the Gnupg-devel