A safe text editor
gnupg at oneiroi.net
Mon Sep 10 08:43:12 CEST 2012
On 09/09/2012 11:32 PM, antispam06 at sent.at wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 9, 2012, at 23:02, Peter Lebbing wrote:
>> On 09/09/12 22:04, antispam06 at sent.at wrote:
>>> It's sad to see that Pretty Good Privacy is just about pretty good and
>>> nothing more. People don't seem to care beyond playing 007.
>> Are you talking about how an encryption/signing tool is not a text
>> What's with the sudden demeaning criticism?
> I just asked around about this issue. And all I get is people telling me
> how their fav text editor can juggle with private keys too. Than I have
> to ask some more questions and end up in the same point: they never
> understood what safe meant. So they never bothered to take the word into
> account. So for them it translates what text editor can do scripting
If you are giving such requirements within mail titled "A safe text editor":
"(...) but, most important, on the disk (temp files and such). *Having
functions to interact with gnupg would be even better*.
*The point is to edit a text and have it all encrypted on disk. I'd like
one that goes for .asc instead of .txt.*"
you can fully expect such answers. If you will view editor's scripting
capability as "function to interact with gnupg" this is what you were
Perhaps you should check for some "official"/widely accepted standards
describing "secure data modification/handling" without troubling
yourself with defining "safe editor".
Also considering your chase after "safety" and "privacy" think about
focusing on "secure" hardware and OS (could be that your "safe text
editor" is a cherry on a rotting cake ;) ).
More information about the Gnupg-users