it occurs to me you could sign-then-encrypt-then-sign if ciphertext malleability concerns you. unless i missed something.
@waxwing sign then encrypt, but why sign again the --armor output?
But u leave uc valuable key noise if u sign again, that could help to get faster break the encrypt that protect ur sign or am i here missing something?
> sign then encrypt
it probably wasn't clear, but i was actually asking which of the two gpg does if you --sign and --encrypt, so are you answering here?
> But u leave uc valuable key noise if u sign again
I don't understand 'uc' there, but .. that's an interesting point to raise. On one hand, it's at least true in abstract, every +1 signature can leak something, if the scheme is sound that should be negligible.
Another consideration: signing ciphertext makes it non-repudiable.
@waxwing uc under circumstances
i assumed --armor sign and then encrypt the output is a good practice, but not sure how those parameters are interpreted if in one sweep on one cmdlline hmm lets check the source ...
@waxwing in gnupg it looks like it does
sign encrypt if u use both options.
on one cmdline. afaics
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!