Changing encryption backend (discussion)

pass-maillinglist at pass-maillinglist at
Thu Jan 19 09:37:36 UTC 2023

Thanks for all the replies regarding the existing fork of pass.
Did not know that, so consider this issue closed.

> Am 18.01.2023 um 14:00 schrieb Louis Bettens <louis at>:
> Hi,
> 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.
> [1]
> 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]
> <OpenPGP_0xDFE1D4A017337E2A.asc>

More information about the Password-Store mailing list