Re: [Duplicity-talk] symmetric vs. key

[Kenneth Loafman]

Edgar Soldin wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I am asking myself the pro's and con's of using symmetric encryption
> versus the use of keys with duplicity.
> 
> Background is that I think many end  users really struggle with keys and
> gpg administration. So I think why bothering them with it when duplicity
> supports keyless symmetric gpg encryption. Of course this only would be
> an option and keys still be supported.
> 
> Is it worth to implement this in ftplicity, which currently insists on a
> key? Does anybody use duplicity this way?

I've used both and prefer symmetric.  I use symmetric for all personal
backups.  Some clients prefer keys, so I use keys for them.

> Do all duplicity versions switch to symmetric when no key is given?

Yes.

> I just read gpg uses cast5 which is supposedly industry strength
> resistant to crypto analysis. The only weak point of course is the
> passphrase, because of the brute force / dictionary attack vector. But
> as the passphrase is in the ftplicity config it can be as long and
> complex as wanted.

A good passphrase can be almost as effective as a key.  Either one
suffers from forgetfulness or loss.  Best to keep copies of each in
multiple safe/secure places.

...Ken

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature