Moin,
> > I don't think the shared memory interface that Werner mentioned recently
> > will be a very good solution. It's very hard to do that portably. I
>
> But it is good to pass the passhrase to gnupg and also provides a way
> for other programs to obtain some bytes of secure memory which may be
> used to implemnet a pssphrase widget. The main reason for this
> interface is to allow a GUI frontend which takes over all the TTX
> input/output.
How about a PGP-camouflage-program?
It uses the same command line parameters as PGP, but calls gnupg with
its correct parameters and communicates via shared memory.
The output of gpg is converted back to use same keywords as pgp.
Advantage:
every program already using PGP can use gnupg at once
Disadvantage:
is is not easy to convert output back.
lack of security ( e.g. using PGP's -z"passphrase")
Gruss,
Walter
--
Walter Koch
phinware Beratung und Software GmbH
Düsseldorf
w.koch@phinware.de
> > I don't think the shared memory interface that Werner mentioned recently
> > will be a very good solution. It's very hard to do that portably. I
>
> But it is good to pass the passhrase to gnupg and also provides a way
> for other programs to obtain some bytes of secure memory which may be
> used to implemnet a pssphrase widget. The main reason for this
> interface is to allow a GUI frontend which takes over all the TTX
> input/output.
How about a PGP-camouflage-program?
It uses the same command line parameters as PGP, but calls gnupg with
its correct parameters and communicates via shared memory.
The output of gpg is converted back to use same keywords as pgp.
Advantage:
every program already using PGP can use gnupg at once
Disadvantage:
is is not easy to convert output back.
lack of security ( e.g. using PGP's -z"passphrase")
Gruss,
Walter
--
Walter Koch
phinware Beratung und Software GmbH
Düsseldorf
w.koch@phinware.de