Best PGP version
Kinda-Geeky
I'm new to PGP and I need help determining what the best
version of PGP is for a couple of different O/S's.
I read the FAQ and didn't see my question addressed. Is there
another place this is addressed?
Please forgive me if this subject has been discussed to death.
So, What is the best freeware version of PGP for these O\S's?
Best to me equates to secure, stable and bug free.
Dos
win98SE
win Nt4
Win 2000
win xp Pro
Linux
Many thanks for your time.
-kinda-geeky
Jonathan Marc Bearak
Hash: SHA1
I don't like the idea of a PGP that comes from a profit-minded company.
I especially don't like the idea of a PGP that goes from company to company.
I use GnuPG on Linux. Only issue is GUI. I've had trouble with PGP GUIs on
my system (mandrake 8.2). tried geheimnis, crashes immediately. Gnu
Privacy Assistant (GPA), the "official" GUI, works fine. but i haven't
truly tested it. I find the command line interface simple and quick.
Since GnuPG is GPL'd, every bit of code ever typed for it is in the public
domain. Helps reduce my paranoia.
Also, what happens to the "official" PGP if this new company doesn't fair
too well?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9f8EEPD30um15pFkRAqKyAKCd0gT1mHlTMm8BwL2lmMcgKxLWwgCeL8Gy
zXj6VJdymGOG+3nxKQUGPNE=
=g2oZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Kinda-Geeky
<NoS...@CheckMyWebSite.com> wrote:
>My opinions are here:
>http://www.McCune.cc/PGPpage2.htm#Version
Tom, thanks for the reply. I checked out your site and have
noted your opinion.
Nice site BTW, I had fun on a few of your links including the
bandwidth test. Run the bandwidth test and then reload it by hitting
back on your browser. Now when you "run" the test again, you'll run it
from cache and the results will make you feel like you are a bandwidth
PIG! 826mbps Yeah! =)
Ok, back to reality....In my search for answers, I came across
this post. Is this guy on the right path or just a loon??? Here's the
post, yes it's kinda long, sorry.
"Concerned Resident"
"PGP: Gone are the days of true encryption"
The older versions of PGP were the ultimate security and encryption
solution. Now, you are better off programming one yourself. Let me
explain... I reside in the United States and I am very concerned about
how the government is practicing its anti-privacy "laws." Regarding
computers, one of the biggest pro-government organization, Microsoft?,
is known by many to infiltrate its ever-so notorious operating system,
Windows?, by secretly placing code written for (and most likely by)
the government. And at what cost? Well, Microsoft? is still a
monopoly, right? The last time I checked the laws of the United States
of America, a monopoly was strictly forbidden and must have ceased
operations. Simply it's a win-win situation: Microsoft? provides the
government with an infiltrated 'popular' operating system, while the
government allows Microsoft? to stay as a monopoly. More money for
Bill, right? What about the latest trials, you say? What happened, my
friend? Nothing! It was just a campaign that was greatly publicized to
show how the good 'ole U.S.A. was hunting down monopolies. Why wasn't
the trails' outcome publicized? Can't you figure that one out
yourself? Regarding PGP, the government is very knowledgeable about
its existence. Because reality is that the government must have
greater power than the people (forget what you learned in high school
about how "the people run the government"), they created a corporation
to purchase PGP and to rewrite the software. And what's wrong with
that, you might ask? Well, it is now closed-source! Previously, PGP
was open-source. Meaning, the programming code was open to the public
to view. Now, being closed-source, the programming code is hidden to
the public and is only viewable to its developers and selected parties
(e.g., government agencies). The ideology behind open-source is to not
only get people involved making software better, but also have peace
of mind knowing there are no secret coding to hurt innocent people of
their rights. My view is: "If you have nothing to hide, why not make
it open-source?" No wonder why the open-source operating system,
UNIX/Linux/etc., is not being strongly marketed in American markets
and being labelled as "you don't want this OS for your home - get
Windows? instead... now." Don't you see why? They want each and every
person to be Microsoft?-compatible so they, too, will have control
over you. You are very ignorant if you still believe PGP is very
secure. If you still don't believe what I have been talking about,
know this: the corporation that bought the original PGP software was
"Network Associates." Don't think the word "was" is a typo. "Network
Associates" (the name probably represents government "associates"),
has now decided to stop "developing" PGP and has handed it to McAfee?
(another pro-government organizations) for them to incorporate into
their own products. "Network Associates" (most likely referred to as
"Operation Network Associates") was just a purchase-and-kill
operation. They bought PGP; they rewrote it; infiltrated it to destroy
its credibility; and now it's dead. The U.S. government, acting
against the Constitution and Bill of Rights, does not want any sense
of privacy to its citizens. They want to see, hear, smell, taste, and
feel what you are doing and what you are thinking (talking,
communicating, etc.). Welcome to the 21st entury. "Democracy" in the
United States? I spit on it. It is worth nothing!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
End of post.
Now, normally I wouldn't worry about this, but then again if
this is true, what's the point of useing PGP? So I need to clear this
up before I start to use it.
Many Thanks!
-kinda-geeky
Kinda-Geeky
<jonatha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>I don't like the idea of a PGP that comes from a profit-minded company.
>
>I especially don't like the idea of a PGP that goes from company to company.
>
>I use GnuPG on Linux. Only issue is GUI. I've had trouble with PGP GUIs on
>my system (mandrake 8.2). tried geheimnis, crashes immediately. Gnu
>Privacy Assistant (GPA), the "official" GUI, works fine. but i haven't
>truly tested it. I find the command line interface simple and quick.
>
>Since GnuPG is GPL'd, every bit of code ever typed for it is in the public
>domain. Helps reduce my paranoia.
>
>Also, what happens to the "official" PGP if this new company doesn't fair
>too well?
>
Thanks for your reply.
I can understand your point. I hope that you look over the
post I just made where I pasted Concerned Resident's post "PGP: Gone
are the days of true encryption."
I would like to know how accurate this is or if it's just
hogwash.
If it is, then maybe PGP v5.5.3 is the way to go being that
it's the last version before it was purchased by NAI?
And I like GPG. Open Source.
I don't know. I'm too new to PGP to form a intelligent
opinion.
Many Thanks,
-kinda-geeky
Kinda-Geeky
<NoS...@CheckMyWebSite.com> wrote:
>There has never been anything to substantiate a conspiracy with any
>government and PGP. The most popular versions of PGP have had full source
>code release, and NAI's stopping this policy, let to Phil Zimmermann (PGP
>founder) leaving NAI. The production team has always been largely the same
>people from PGP Inc. to NAI, to PGP Corp, so personal involvement in all
>this suggests it would remain secure. The author apparently didn't
>understand that McAfee is a division of NAI, and did the retail PGP
>distribution - it had nothing to do with the development of PGP. As to
>conspiracy theories, such a product as PGP will be an obvious target, but
>anyone should be able to give a decent conspiracy theory for any two
>randomly selected entities.
Ok, so that post is hogwash. I can just go ahead and D\L the
latest version and play with that.
One point you confused me on though...
>government and PGP. The most popular versions of PGP have had full source
>code release, and NAI's stopping this policy, let to Phil Zimmermann (PGP
>founder) leaving NAI. The production team has always been largely the same
So NAI stopped releasing the source? Source is no longer
available? Am I understanding that correctly?
Thanks again for your time!
-kinda-geeky
Jonathan Marc Bearak
Hash: SHA1
I've had my theories on that.
here's a post, re: xbox
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=msgid:<beCe9.18418$hh.38...@twister.nyc.rr.com>&ic=1
Ever heard of SE Linux, by the way? http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/
Obviously, the NSA thinks GNU/Linux is more secure.
(no conspiracy theory on that, they've actually obeyed the GPL! every bit
of code is online.)
To make a slight leap . . . GNU-PG
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9gPr8PD30um15pFkRAv9CAJ9+22PNKDQjJqFCd5lnB6fQuUxuFgCePfmR
1erLwmQX5LOinFyq2+p1nPw=
=D2cM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----