Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- pgpfan:minimalist [2021/06/15 19:44] – Achieve something by not doing it. b.walzer
+++ pgpfan:minimalist [2021/06/15 19:50] (current) – Less awkward. b.walzer
@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 As a contrast, consider the Signal Protocol for instant messaging. I will not attempt to describe Signal in any detail as I would get parts of it wrong. It would also make for a pointlessly long article. There is a high level description of the Signal protocol [[https://signal.org/docs/|here]]. None of the following comments are intended to be critical, they are intended to give an idea of the level of complexity of the protocol in total:
-  * Signal has at least 2 systems for creating [[pgpfan:forward_secrecy|forward secrecy]]. Each systems requires a system to deal with loss of synchronization.
+  * Signal has at least 2 systems for creating [[pgpfan:forward_secrecy|forward secrecy]]. Each system requires a system to deal with loss of synchronization.
   * A Signal session requires the storage and maintenance of a lot of state information.
   * Signal normally uses a server based "prekey" system to deal with the case where a client is offline and thus is unable to negotiate.
@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 The Signal Protocol is built on ideas from the [[pgpfan:off_the_record|Off the Record]] (OTR) protocol. Interestingly enough, OTR was intended to improve PGP by adding extra functionality. Signal adds functionality on top of the OTR functionality. So Signal could be considered the result of an attempt to improve something by making it more complex.
-I believe that reliability and security are best achieved with simple systems. PGP is the best answer to that right now.
+I believe that reliability and security are best achieved with simple systems. OpenPGP is a standard that describes such a system.
 [[pgpfan:index|PGP FAN index]]