- #GPG FOR OUTLOOK HOW TO#
- #GPG FOR OUTLOOK SOFTWARE#
- #GPG FOR OUTLOOK CODE#
- #GPG FOR OUTLOOK LICENSE#
On the other hand, if you don't actually need that diversity, going with the Windows/Outlook builtin X.509 stuff could be your best option.
#GPG FOR OUTLOOK SOFTWARE#
Just read this for how much responsibility software companies have to their paying customers.
#GPG FOR OUTLOOK LICENSE#
To this end, if GPG support is good enough for users of Mixmaster anonymous remailers (these are some truly smart and paranoid folk) and for the OpenBSD maintaners, I'd have to say its okay for my needs.Īnd I'm pretty certain that GPG supports more algorithms than PGP, and you can be 100% certain that the out-of-the-box algorithms in GPG are not hindered by patents or license restrictions.
![gpg for outlook gpg for outlook](https://www.ionos.it/digitalguide/fileadmin/DigitalGuide/Screenshots/evolution.png)
#GPG FOR OUTLOOK CODE#
At least with GPL'd software, there's no pretense of accountability.Īs for the techical comparison to PGP, I don't have the ability to evaluate code myself, so I must rely on those who care about security and have the ability to digest source code. Yes, you get what you pay for - an unreasonable EULA and company that tells you "you're s.o.l." if anything should go wrong enough to cause your business damage, all for the yearly support cost of what could likely pay for a competent admin to deal with the software in-house.
#GPG FOR OUTLOOK HOW TO#
Rubbish! Following the herd mentality of corporate america may be smart in the political aspects of business (so is knowing how to golf, but that's just as lame.), but not necessarily in the technical aspects. If you think GnuPG is better than Phil Zimmermans PGP by all means go with it, but why not just do what most corporations do and pay for software that comes with a support contract? The point is, you DO get what you pay for. When you are buying security software, you have to both trust the software and trust the people who make the software. Technically, I still think its pretty good (even with the above issues) but commercially, its position is questionable. Even as it is, it has definitely raised the bar for the usability of encryption software. You could certainly end up paying for software which is not effectively supported.Īll of this is a shame, because PGP had every chance of flourishing under NAI, and it was shaping up to be a really good little product.
![gpg for outlook gpg for outlook](https://img.informer.com/p1/update-for-microsoft-outlook-2010-v1-main-window-example.png)
GPG is covered by the German export regime, which is much more friendly than that of the US.Ī third is commercial: NAI have have scaled back development effort on PGP software, and may well sell PGP desktop. You don't want them to have to uninstall their encryption software before they go to a country because the license says so (being arrested at the airport is a different matter.). In big companies, you may have people travelling to countries controlled by nasty regimes. Nevertheless, there is no evidence to suggest that NAI's commercial PGP has a deliberate back door (whatever people might have heard or believe).Īnother reason is licensing: the NAI PGP license is quite prescriptive, in terms of what it permits you to do with the product (or say about it). You can trust open source encryption software more than closed source. The first is trust: while people often talk about access to source code being essential for security (and then nobody looks at the code), with popular encryption software everyone looks at the source code. There are several reasons to think about switching.