From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [Q] Encrypted GIT? Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:21:44 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: References: <20080313114738.GC2414@genesis.frugalware.org> <20080313121644.GD2414@genesis.frugalware.org> <20080313125853.GA12927@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Miklos Vajna , Alexander Gladysh , git@vger.kernel.org To: Theodore Tso X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Mar 13 16:23:09 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JZpG6-00085M-JB for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:22:19 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752757AbYCMPVk (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:21:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752690AbYCMPVk (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:21:40 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:56229 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752536AbYCMPVj (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:21:39 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 13 Mar 2008 15:21:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO [138.251.11.74]) [138.251.11.74] by mail.gmx.net (mp004) with SMTP; 13 Mar 2008 16:21:37 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19mFEA8FL1m8ONUSknNqZXB/FOwFEgLTEGje5xbmo NNVVA/uJcoIMg5 X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <20080313125853.GA12927@mit.edu> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (LSU 882 2007-12-20) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 01:16:44PM +0100, Miklos Vajna wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 12:55:11PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > The latter can be remedied (somewhat) by encrypting each object > > > individually. In that case, .gitattributes can help (you should be > > > able to find a mail to that extent, which I sent no more than 2 > > > weeks ago). However, you must make sure that the encryption is > > > repeatable, i.e. two different encryption runs _must_ result in > > > _identical_ output. > > > > afaik, this is not the case for gpg. > > No, and you wouldn't want to use gpg because of the overhead it adds > around an encrypted message. To the contrary: if your files are small (which they are most likely), you _want_ the overhead, in order to make the encryption harder to crack. AFAICT gpg is a good all-round encryption tool, and reinventing the wheel just for encrypting things in a git repository just does not cut it. Ciao, Dscho