Changing encryption backend (discussion)

Louis Bettens louis at
Wed Jan 18 13:00:27 UTC 2023


There already exists a fork of Pass that uses age as a backend.[1] Thus 
there's no point in reinventing that in our branch.

I will add that although Age has a lot going for it, I like my setup and 
will keep using OpenPGP and thus GPG pass for the foreseeable future. 
Therefore I will follow and contribute to a GPG branch. Feel free to try 
out passage though.


On 18.01.23 10:16, pass-maillinglist at wrote:
> Hello to all,
> the other day I was thinking about whether it might be time to replace 
> GPG with
> another backend. age [1] is written in Go, seems to follow a similar 
> philosophy
> as e.g. WireGuard (reasonable algorithms, no unnecessary 
> configuration, ...) and
> is accepted by the community (about 12.7k stars on Github, if that means
> anything) and is open source and free. In the past, there have been two
> discussions on this mailing list about replacing GPG [2, 3]. At that 
> time the
> discussion was stopped due to lack of alternatives. Now we have an 
> alternative.
> A project that is 100% compatible with pass and has age as an optional 
> backend
> is gopass [4]. However, in my opinion, the developers of gopass have 
> overdone it
> and developed a software monolith that is far too complex.
> So: what do you think about the idea of replacing GPG with age as an 
> encryption
> backend?
> P.S.: when age was designed, one of the goals of the developers was to 
> become a
> backend of pass [5] :) (but I'm not sure how actual this goal is today).
> [1]
> [2] 
> [3] 
> [4]
> [5] 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_0xDFE1D4A017337E2A.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 5138 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP public key
URL: <>

More information about the Password-Store mailing list