Git

2872 readers

1 users here now

Git is a free and open source distributed version control system designed to handle everything from small to very large projects with speed and efficiency.

Resources

Rules

Follow programming.dev rules
Be excellent to each other, no hostility towards users for any reason
No spam of tools/companies/advertisements. It’s OK to post your own stuff part of the time, but the primary use of the community should not be self-promotion.

Git Logo by Jason Long is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Ategon

canpolat

jnovinger

Decoupling GPG from Git (self.git)

submitted 1 year ago by danhab99 to c/git

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Over the last year I've been trying to understand why GPG isn't popular. Based on the features I think it's a pretty valid thing. This article changed my mind.

Turns out GPG is too old ¯_(ツ)_/¯

I like signing my commits, it feels good to know that my identity is actually attached to my code. So I put in some work to reconfigure git to use a different signing tool, I didn't think it would be such a big deal, turns out git fully intergrates GPG. I'm confused. Why does git need to be hardcoded to use GPG specifically?

What rule says we can't have git configs like:

[sigining]
  defaultMethod=minisign

[signing.minisign]
  always=true
  signCommand=minisign -S -s {secret-key-file} -x {sig-file-name} -m {target-file}
  verifyCommand=minisign -V -P {public-key-file} -m {target-file}

Where the verifyCommand exits 0 if the signature is good and 1 if not.

I'm open to hearing cons. These are some I can think of:

User's have to configure git with each signing and verifying program
Upstream security conserns from signing programs
Signing programs changing their interfaces

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

The article that changed your mind really shouldn't have. It's mostly full of hyperbole. Like this:

"PGP does a mediocre job of signing things, a relatively poor job of encrypting them with passwords, and a pretty bad job of encrypting them with public keys. PGP is not an especially good way to securely transfer a file. It’s a clunky way to sign packages. It’s not great at protecting backups. It’s a downright dangerous way to converse in secure messages."

Literally none of this is true - the author is presenting their particular opinions as general fact. I use AES through PGP, knowing that even future quantum computers can't break it.

I wish they'd cut out all the 90's references and pointless exaggerations, and stuck to facts. Then again, the facts-only version of this article probably wouldn't make a strong case against PGP.

(Also, one of the links in the article, with the dodgy-and-harmful link text "Full disk encryption isn’t great", includes advice to use PGP in it. Maybe the author should have read the references they were citing.)