Differences

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

--- pgpfan:schism [2024/09/09 19:08] – [Where are we now?] Avoiding the war. b.walzer
+++ pgpfan:schism [2024/10/06 05:36] (current) – [About the "OpenPGP Schism" (2023 Dec)] we have better names now. b.walzer
@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 More recently, the two factions that fell out of this have been, actively and publicly, promoting their somewhat different proposals. That sparked the article.
-I will refer to one faction as the GnuPG faction but acknowledge that there are other projects that support this position. For lack of a better name, I will refer to the other faction as Crypto Refresh Current (the latest IETF draft).
+I will refer to one faction as the GnuPG faction (now [[https://librepgp.org/|LibrePGP]]) but acknowledge that there are other projects that support this position. For lack of a better name, I will refer to the other faction as Crypto Refresh Current (now [[https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9580.html|RFC 9580]]).
 I will only talk about the most contentious issue: the addition of new block cipher modes. The scope of the proposed changes is vast, but the block cipher mode issue is the aspect of this I feel the most qualified to comment on.
@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 This mode is also optional. Chances are, no one will ever implement it. So good?
-  =====Where are we now?=====
+=====Where are we now?=====
 We have a total of 4 new proposed block cipher modes. Each and every mode is incompatible with each and every other mode and the two existing modes. That means that files/messages encrypted with a particular mode can't be decrypted by another implementation that does not support that particular mode. This seems to be the complete opposite of what anyone would want from a standards process.