[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: What do folks think about Google's new FOSS OpenPGP browser extension?



Do they provide binaries these days? I failed to spot it in the chrome webstore, and last time I checked (might be a year ago), they required people to compile the extension themselves.

Any progress on that front?

Reinhard


On Thu, May 5, 2016, 14:48 Thomas Raindog <thomas.raindog@gmail.com> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Woof.
Well, kudos to Google for embracing and implementing the importance of providing more user-friendly encryption tools.
But PGP will now be forever associated with the Google brand- I don't see how it can escape that- and I think that brand is synonymous with a door closing to the public, only Super Google People allowed. Non-free, Chrome only, users must download through the Chrome Web Store, and "relatively effortless.
However- if more people become interested in end-to-end encryption, hopefully this will be a great opportunity to share GPG and other opensource software.

- -Tom

PS - I really hope they don't use the typical "G" naming formula (Gmail, Gdrive, etc) and name it Gpgp... that would be nightmarishly confusing.


On 5/5/16 12:53 PM, Chris Ruvolo wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 10:45:42AM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote:
>> Is this something that could/should be eventually useful, or a
>> fundamentally flawed concept?
>
> While anything that gets PGP used more would be good in theory, I have to
> worry about the huge attack surface that a browser presents.  If anyone is
> already using gnupg, they shouldn't replace it with the e2e plugin.
>
> -Chris
>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=OPzj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Reply to: