age VS git-crypt

and echoing the result after converting to an age private key

I like that https://github.com/FiloSottile/age has small public keys.

> something fresh

It exists, it's called age..

Some random links

https://github.com/FiloSottile/age

https://www.reddit.com/r/crypto/comments/hr64hr/state_of_age...

https://github.com/FiloSottile/age/discussions/432

> (Acquiring keys, rotating keys, identifying compromised keys, and most importantly either reaches a large enough percentage of emails..

Oh nevermind, age doesn't do any of that. Indeed, it doesn't even do email https://github.com/FiloSottile/age/issues/93

Encrypted secrets thanks to SOPS and Age

I never heard of "Age" before this post. Thank you to share. If others are interested to learn more, here are two other interesting posts about Age:

https://github.com/FiloSottile/age/discussions/432

https://words.filippo.io/dispatches/age-authentication/

of all things I was able to resolve the issue via this github issue: https://github.com/FiloSottile/age/issues/370#issuecomment-1...

Why keep something secret on a public repo? Is that not an oxymoron?

Also, I’m terms of encryption something like age[0] makes it much easier to not shoot yourself in the foot.

[0] https://github.com/FiloSottile/age

Why RSA specifically? For backups, I recommend Tarsnap. But if you really don't want to pay for encrypted cloud hosting, then check out age encryption.

I wouldn't use OpenSSL personally. If you just need simple but secure symmetric encryption, checkout the scrypt(1) encryption utility from Tarsnap. If you need support for public keys, check out age(1).

https://github.com/AGWA/git-crypt

And occasionally to encrypt files, or receive encrypted files.

These are practical things which are non-theoretical.

> Using multiple keys don't offer added security or secrecy.

Depends on how careful you are or want to be, with your private key. My house key isn't the same as my car key isn't the same as my bike key.

> This is nothing like data harvesting

Alright fair, bad example. What I was grumbling about was more the lack of any clear communication that you've been auto-opted-in to a feature on protonmail, with no user interface signal indicating so, leading to confusion for a couple months like in TFA. I definitely wasn't casting shade on the opengpg keyserver, nor protonmail. It's the "hey! I didn't check a box for this, and it's not mentioned anywhere in the protonmail docs" hidden functionality which could do with some clarification.

I'm a forgetful creature. If I intentionally put my key on a keyserver, because I'm playing around and learning about PGP, will I make the connection between it and protonmail a few months down the line if I move my email account to them? Unlikely.

It's a nice automated feature. Protonmail-to-protonmail e2e encryption makes a lot of sense. I just think protonmail-to-non-protonmail e2e needs a tooltip in the UI, and the option to opt out, potentially with the ability to opt out for specific email addresses. I wouldn't at all assume it would be on by default even IF I've been actively using PGP in my email clients, because it's something you usually have to manually set up yourself, very explicitly. That, and 99.9% of emails are plaintext.

Anyhoo, one thing I forgot which kind of negates the "what if I have multiple encryption keys tied to my email" is the fact that the opengpg keyserver does tie 1 email address to 1 key so you can't publish multiple encryption keys, fair enough. Git-crypt and file encryption, I set my associated email address to use +tags eg [email protected], so as far as protonmail etc are concerned there's only one key per logical email address.

Apart from a few exceptions (like ansible for example, which supports native encryption), we moved away from encrypted secrets in git repos and use external things, depending on the platform (like parameter store / secrets manager for AWS or keyvault for Azure - both of these do track changes, btw), so I haven't looked for quite a while. Back in ye olden days we used https://github.com/AGWA/git-crypt which worked quite nicely, but the key management is cumbersome and it's based on GPG, which in itself is a bit of a light redish flag these days.

How about encryption?

https://github.com/AGWA/git-crypt has been solid for me

The most interesting approach I've seen for this is https://github.com/AGWA/git-crypt

Store the Secrets in a repo using gitcrypt or another encryption tool.

Consider using git-crypt for transparent encryption instead.

There‘s plugins like https://github.com/AGWA/git-crypt or https://git-secret.io that you can use to encrypt the files for yourself, so that they are available on multiple machines to you

There aren't really alternatives to being very very careful, tbh. But it's a bit of a smell that there are secrets kept alongside your source code. There are cases where you might want secrets in git, but if they're there on purpose you'll hopefully be doing something about it, like encrypting them first. git-crypt is useful here.

Use either Mozilla SOPS to encrypt the values in the file, or got-encrypt to encrypt the whole repo

https://github.com/AGWA/git-crypt for whole repo