On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 18:38:36 +0100, dirk.gottschalk1...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Dirk,
> Am Donnerstag, den 10.01.2019, 16:23 +0100 schrieb Stefan Claas:
> And this prevents also prevents an unintended DoS which means a very
> big key by mistake. It's okay to allow the generation of everything
On 10/01/2019 15:56, Stefan Claas wrote:
> Have you or anybody else seen such a large and legitimate attribute
> packet, also one from before 2014?
That would be rather surprising as usually such limits are chosen to be
quite conservative, i.e., way above what is legitimately used. That
would
Hello.
Am Donnerstag, den 10.01.2019, 16:23 +0100 schrieb Stefan Claas:
> > It's part of GNU philosophy to not implement unnecessary
> > hard limits in software but one good reason to impose limits
> > is to prevent denial of service conditions.
> What i really don't get with this DoS stuff is
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 09:41:59 +1100, gn...@raf.org wrote:
> Stefan Claas wrote:
>
> > I only wanted to know why such a large image size in the first
> > place was chosen, when GnuPG suggest a much much smaller
> > size. :-)
>
> I'd guess that it's not about image size. It's a
> maximum packet
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 23:13:33 +, Damien Goutte-Gattat wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 11:29:06PM +0100, dirk1980ac via Gnupg-users wrote:
> > > I only wanted to know why such a large image size in the first
> > > place was chosen, when GnuPG suggest a much much smaller
> > > size. :-)
> >
>
