Crul
Moved to @Crul@lemm.ee
I think you have duplicated this one with the new date format.
Previous post: 29 June 1986 : calvinandhobbes
My bad, you’re right, I should have added a small description (done!):
- !cassettefuturism@lemm.ee: a genre of retrofuturism based on the 70’s and 80’s (more info)
- !awwnverts@lemmy.world: cute invertebrates
- !weirdwheels@lemmy.world: weird vehicles (with wheels)
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world: self-explanatory
inb4: chibi Cthulhu
You said encryption occurs with the public key and decryption occurs with the private
I’m sad that I edited some typos on my original message because now you will probably think I changed it. But I said the opposite.
Anyway, there is probably some missunderstanding here and I don’t think this conversation is useful.
Thanks for the feedback.
Sorry, but I still think I’m saying the same thing as in that paragraph:
[from your link] a sender can use a private key together with a message to create a signature
- [from my post] the same content published in clear text encrypted with the[ir] private key
[from your link] Anyone with the corresponding public key can verify
- [from my post] anyone can decrypt it with the author’s public key
EDIT: changed encryption / decryption to signing / veryfing. Thanks for the corrections
Not an expert, those who know more please correct me.
From what I understand, what they post is not a PGP key, but the same content published in clear text signed with their private key. That way anyone can verify it with the author’s public key to check it has been generated with the private one (that only one person should have).