That srticle does not claim PGP to be insecure.
“Keys can be stolen or hacked”. Assuming that an adversary gains access to your user account on your local computer? Well, there is no messaging protocol that will “protect” you and your data when an adversary has unrestricted access to your user account.
I am not sure for whom this article was written. “It’s hard to exchange keys” is Computer Security 101. That’s how public-key cryptography without a centeralized PKI works. The only valid argument against PGP I could recognize here is the fact that PGP provides no forward secrecy.
It seems you completely misinterpreted the intention of the article (willingly or ignorantly).
At Skiff, we take an authoritative position that PGP is no longer useful, long outdated by better encryption protocols, encumbered by unneeded complexity, and hard to use even from the start.
Except for “no longer useful” the rest is pretty much unanimously agreed upon within the community.
Skiff Team wrote the article to promote Skiff products, referred to PGP as dead, and repeatedly implied it was insecure:
While PGP is generally considered to be secure, there have been instances where PGP implementations have been successfully attacked by hackers. This can leave users’ communications vulnerable to interception and decryption.
Of course, in order to use their encryption, you must buy into their platform, and so must everyone else… The end-to-end encryption only works when both ends are on their servers. (This is true for every other “E2EE email” provider.)
deleted by creator
