47

The two options are intended for different use cases. Option 1 is intended for your use case. It encrypts the file with a key derived from a password, so that only the person who knows the password (i.e. most likely the person who encrypted it in the first place) can decrypt it. Option 2 is designed so you can share encrypted files/messages with others. The ...


22

There's one advantage of using public key cryptography over private key cryptography when you're encrypting file for yourself. When you use symmetric cryptography, you need to expose the password every time you need to encrypt or decrypt a file. With public key cryptography, you only need to decrypt the private key if you need to decrypt the file. In public ...


7

So what's the point of using a private key instead of a password if the private key itself is password protected? Why wouldn't I want to straightforwardly use option 1? In this case it's probably not a big point. But certificates can be stored on smart cards. Smart cards refuse to hand out a copy of the certificate, but they can do computations based on the ...


1

You give up. DRM doesn't work. It's fundamentally broken. The idea is that someone should not be able to view the data, but should be able to view the data. That's just not possible; to play the data to show it on a screen, you have to be able to understand it. If you understand it, you can make copies to whatever format you want. Hollywood attempted to ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible