full-disclosure - PGP vs. certificate from Verisign

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: guninski at guninski.com (Georgi Guninski)
Subject: PGP vs. certificate from Verisign

I am not an expert, but AFAIK at some time the key issuer have your *private* 
key because they issue the key. I am not comfortable someone else having my 
private key no matter if they claim they don't keep it.

Georgi

Kamal Habayeb wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> I'm trying to get some expert opinions on which is better.  Using Outlook
> 2002, would it be better to use PGP to encrypt messages or use the built-in
> option with a digital certificate from Verisign (or some other CA)?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Kamal
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
> 
>