Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document
dirk.gottschalk1980 at googlemail.com
Fri Nov 2 15:35:53 CET 2018
Am Donnerstag, den 01.11.2018, 20:14 +0100 schrieb Wiktor Kwapisiewicz:
> On 01.11.2018 11:19, stefan.claas at posteo.de wrote:
> Do you mean X.509 is technically good or just more widely supported
> in software than OpenPGP? For me there are only few cases where X.509
> infrastructure has something that OpenPGP lacks (e.g. timestamping).
I prefer GPG. And no, GPG does not lack timestamping, a timestamp is
included in every signature.
X.509 is more widely spread. I think this is the only reason that it is
preferred by some users. I would like to see GPG to be more widely
used. For me, x.509 is not more trustworthy than GPG, I trust this
system and the signed certificate less in many cases.
The signature regulations in the EU are not the best. In the US, I
read, ebven PGP is approved in some states. They use it even vor notary
approvals. We had a thread describing this a few months ago.
The only thing is, that GPG can not do inline signing of PDFs. This
would be a nice feature, but, AFAIK the standard for PDF doesn't leave
us this option.
52064 Aachen, Germany
GPG: DDCB AF8E 0132 AA54 20AB B864 4081 0B18 1ED8 E838
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Gnupg-users