sign encrypted emails
ekleog at gmail.com
Sat Jan 4 00:56:36 CET 2014
On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 12:50:47PM -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 01/03/2014 08:12 AM, Leo Gaspard wrote:
> > So changing the encryption could break an opsec.
> If someone's opsec is based on the question of whether a message was
> encrypted or not, then they've probably got their cart before their
> horse too.
> opsec requirements should indicate whether you encrypt, not the other
> way around.
Well... So, where is the flow in my example? This example was designed so that,
depending on the level of encryption (and so the "importance" of the safety of
the message according to the sender), the message had different meanings.
Sorry, I can't see yet where I went wrong.
More information about the Gnupg-users