Sure, you have to trust their software, but is that fundamentally different than trusting the GPG software, or did you do a full audit of that?
Sure, you have to trust their software, but is that fundamentally different than trusting the GPG software, or did you do a full audit of that?
GPG has a track record of being secure against many adversaries, including the NSA. It's used by most Linux distributions for package signing, so you probably already depend on it -- even if indirectly.
I don't expect GPG to be completely secure. But it's not based on deception.
I get that there's a difference in degree, i. e. GPG binaries being checked against hashes and having a long track record as an organization, but is that fundamentally different?
I could see ProtonMail evolving to, for example, using a browser extension that allows you to use a known-good version of the crypto library, and informing you of changes.
Point being: it isn't perfect and I'd prefer something based on standards. But e-mail encryption has failed, even though it is often more personal than websites where TLS has been successful. ProtonMail is a legitimate attempt in a space that seems to need a new approach.
GPG is used asynchronously. In many cases, everyone would need to be compromised to go after one person. That raises the chance of discovery.
A browser extension is a fantastically better idea. Google previously prototyped most of the work for this: https://github.com/google/end-to-end
Further to that, I'd trust Google's infrastructure to withstand compromise much more than I'd trust a datacenter run by a small company that I know much less about. (Tinfoil hat: sure, I have to assume that the NSA has a copy of my Gmail inbox, but god knows who else may have owned ProtonMail.)
How often do you download ProtonMail's Javascript code? Several times per second, as long as you're using it.