Re: [gentoo-user] loop-aes + extra-ciphers...
Am Mittwoch, 25. Juni 2008 schrieb ext Chris Walters: Also, someone said that it was possible to encrypt using multiple passphrases using dm-crypt. That was me. To be correct: I wrote that with LUKS (which is based on dm-crypt) it is possible to use multiple keys (a key may be a passphrase or a keyfile on disk). LUKS does this by rserving the first block of an encrypted volume for meta data. Again: see http://luks.endorphin.org for the details. Bye... Dirk -- Dirk Heinrichs | Tel: +49 (0)162 234 3408 Configuration Manager | Fax: +49 (0)211 47068 111 Capgemini Deutschland | Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wanheimerstraße 68 | Web: http://www.capgemini.com D-40468 Düsseldorf | ICQ#: 110037733 GPG Public Key C2E467BB | Keyserver: wwwkeys.pgp.net signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-user] xrandr: Intel G965 and HDTV woes
I've bought a shiny new htpc that I was hoping would just work with Linux. Sadly it doesn't. Before I post a long and rambling diatribe, does anyone know how to run xrandr remotely (since I just get a blank screen on the hdtv)? I tried over tunnelled ssh and just got the local (my laptop's) X server's settings, and then tried using the -display flag like so: # /etc/init.d/xdm start * Setting up gdm ... * Detaching to start `/usr/bin/gdm' ... # xrandr -display :0 Xlib: connection to :0.0 refused by server Xlib: No protocol specified Can't open display :0 I'm guessing this requires me to somehow open access to the X server. I set 'DisallowTCP=false' in /etc/X11/gdm/custom.conf in the [security] section and restarted gdm but that didn't seem to do anything. What else can I try to get xrandr to let me change the resolution for a xserver that can't be seen? Thanks. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] xrandr: Intel G965 and HDTV woes
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:47:12 +0100 Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... # xrandr -display :0 Xlib: connection to :0.0 refused by server Xlib: No protocol specified Can't open display :0 I'm guessing this requires me to somehow open access to the X server. I set 'DisallowTCP=false' in /etc/X11/gdm/custom.conf in the [security] section and restarted gdm but that didn't seem to do anything. What else can I try to get xrandr to let me change the resolution for a xserver that can't be seen? Have a look at xhost. You can manage the access to your xserver on a per-host basis. xhost + will just allow any host to connect (which is of course insecure, depending on your environment!). Regards, Patric -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] loop-aes + extra-ciphers...
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:20:20 -0400 Chris Walters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Thanks to all who replied to my previous question. This question is related. Has anyone gotten the 'extra-ciphers' (you can get them from the loop-aes site) to compile with the loop-aes kernel patch in place? If so, could you give me a hint on how to do this? Perhaps they appear as kernel modules? I'm just guessing. Also, someone said that it was possible to encrypt using multiple passphrases using dm-crypt. To be clear are we talking about the same type of multiple passphrases that can be used with AES and Serpent with loop-aes? Yes, you can have multiple passwords with dm-crypt-luks. In other words, you set up a number pg passphrases (64 or 65), and the first block uses the first passphrase, the second block uses the second one, etc. The 65th passpharse is added to the hash of the encryption passphrase. Never bothered to go so deep in the internals, but... I had a busyness laptop with non-sensitive (in my opinion) data, but the managers were quite paranoid about that, so I had to encrypt the drives to save myself the administrative trouble in case it was stolen. I followed the gentoo-wiki how-to [1] and found out that encrypting the hdd visibly slowed down the system. Rumor has it that the three-letter agencies (CIA, KGB, M.A.V.O. [2], etc) can break those algorithms relatively easy. On the other hand even weaker algorithms can protect your data against laptop thieves. What I'm saying is that it is pointless to get very crazy about strong and heavy algorithms. After all if your enemies are not after your hardware, but after your data, they could always physically force you to reveal the password. Also (as if that weren't enough), is it possible to encrypt the passphrases or keys in dm-crypt with gnupg, like it is with loop-aes? If so, please give examples. Yes, you could do something like: head /dev/urandom | gpg --symmetric -a key.gpg gpg --decrypt key.gpg | cryptsetup luksFormat /dev/some-block-device gpg --decrypt key.gpg | cryptsetup luksOpen /dev/some-block-device (The above commands are not correct, their sole purpose is to show the idea) [1] System Encryption DM-Crypt with LUKS: http://tinyurl.com/clrk6 [2] M.A.V.O.: http://tinyurl.com/4badqs ; http://tinyurl.com/4chhph :D -- Best regards, Daniel -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] DVD drive firmware version
Does anyone know how I can find the firmware version in my Lite-On DVD drive? I have an .exe file with the latest version. Impossible to use it? - Grant -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] DVD drive firmware version
Grant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone know how I can find the firmware version in my Lite-On DVD drive? I have an .exe file with the latest version. Impossible to use it? cdrecord -inq Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] DVD drive firmware version
Does anyone know how I can find the firmware version in my Lite-On DVD drive? I have an .exe file with the latest version. Impossible to use it? cdrecord -inq Jörg Thank you, that works great. How would you upgrade the firmware? Maybe boot to a DOS disc? - Grant -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] Quick script request
Feel free to ignore me here, but if anyone could whip out a quick script for this I would really appreciate it. I need to move any files from dir1 to dir2 if they don't already exist in dir2 with a slightly different filename. The dir1 files are named like a-1.jpg and the dir2 files are named like a-1_original.jpg. - Grant -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] loop-aes + extra-ciphers...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Daniel Iliev wrote: | On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:20:20 -0400 | Chris Walters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] | Perhaps they appear as kernel modules? I'm just guessing. I think that is how they are supposed to appear, but I can't seem to get them to compile, and the instructions are not too helpful. [snip] | Yes, you can have multiple passwords with dm-crypt-luks. That is good. [snip | Never bothered to go so deep in the internals, but... | | I had a busyness laptop with non-sensitive (in my opinion) data, but | the managers were quite paranoid about that, so I had to encrypt the | drives to save myself the administrative trouble in case it was stolen. | I followed the gentoo-wiki how-to [1] and found out that encrypting the | hdd visibly slowed down the system. | | Rumor has it that the three-letter agencies (CIA, KGB, M.A.V.O. [2], | etc) can break those algorithms relatively easy. On the other hand even | weaker algorithms can protect your data against laptop thieves. That's more than a rumor. Another three letter agency (NSA) has networks of supercomputers that can brute force a passphrase is little time. I am majoring in mathematics, and plan to specialize in cryptology. I doubt they'd let me publish an algorithm that is very hard to break... It is not that I'm terribly paranoid about people getting my data, I just want to make it a little harder. Of course, it is always possible to insert code that will send the unencrypted data, once you've logged on - not easy for the casual user, but for the guru, an easy thing. | What I'm saying is that it is pointless to get very crazy about strong | and heavy algorithms. After all if your enemies are not after your | hardware, but after your data, they could always physically force you | to reveal the password. Yes, I suppose that they could do that, using torture or something like that. [snip] | Yes, you could do something like: | | head /dev/urandom | gpg --symmetric -a key.gpg | gpg --decrypt key.gpg | cryptsetup luksFormat /dev/some-block-device | gpg --decrypt key.gpg | cryptsetup luksOpen /dev/some-block-device | | | (The above commands are not correct, their sole purpose is to show the | idea) Thanks for the ideas, and for the links. I will be checking them out. | [1] System Encryption DM-Crypt with LUKS: http://tinyurl.com/clrk6 | | [2] M.A.V.O.: http://tinyurl.com/4badqs ; http://tinyurl.com/4chhph :D Regards, Chris -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJIYmDJAAoJEIAhA8M9p9DA0skQAOOPam7lkhP6q+8XstmaUX5s O0zIyEHyIjxi6o2cln60UVXFzac89VvJ4fXYWgA9KcagedGsbWCljp/92Xynyqng 3lnZUWPZPkr0+M5khbO8EKMfEOlx4klWkbXX7kbyNWiSs1b9uWoJJqcb7fpU0mc8 6/Z/4v2EmkTCML1UHdNYaJkeJL7Tr0OxfK0gt9V8xadcZAyJQbF1YpZCqtlBEpdn Fom/tSwgpNn8Lxj5KdbFuNimflDDs4MlOfIsPUTm95mxlTw79YvTg2zqKEzmEvFE Zu3q9867JbStBLUzWJ/sB1WdTWmULm8q1N4tgGC/si02lTHHkpNoX9Sey2fw/w2x CrGBqALNyl3Buh2jMZY4+ALEr+YKnKIZFEybQtKlj971vtrj9s6m6yQM0GUoy41g zzjuIBarrr0NYwZI2rGSF/9aSoksD7GD8JIeLlDuJMpRowwsuU50IwR7cBZ2LfpX heNoxLdUfCdzeXeKOtyoPJNIvDv1LxwuUvlcxXT9vbU/ufvznCzOXlpKyoOWuL29 +aKJVKtzM4wCX+suqJZqva3npyXQMWnk45MjhE7KNvFA8k/OfBZkdxJ9F187iJi1 UoVNeenYgwogC4Y5jXKXdPNdaiFfe+byrIAmdWZOFYhPMBKY5OXO/pVcgp6kfAMe DJDh7m7neS1/8IPmfmG0 =SUZm -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] DVD drive firmware version
Grant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cdrecord -inq Jörg Thank you, that works great. How would you upgrade the firmware? Maybe boot to a DOS disc? Sorry, this is where I cannot help with LiteON drives. There may be code for DOS but it it not OSS. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Quick script request
Grant asks:
Feel free to ignore me here, but if anyone could whip out a quick
script for this I would really appreciate it.
Whipped. Be sure to test it, because I did not :) Remove the echo statement
when you are sure it works.
I need to move any files from dir1 to dir2 if they don't already exist
in dir2 with a slightly different filename. The dir1 files are named
like a-1.jpg and the dir2 files are named like a-1_original.jpg.
cd $dir1
for file in *
do
if ! [[ -f $dir2/${file%.*}_original.${file##*.} ]]
then
echo mv -v $file $dir2/
fi
done
Loop over all files. If not exists a file called dir2/${file%.*}_original.
${file##*/}, move $file. ${file%.*} removes the suffix from $file
(everything from the last dot on), while ${file##*.} removes everything
until the dot, leaving the suffix only. Be sure to use the correct path for
dir2, either absolute or with some ../ in it.
Alex
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Quick script request
On Wednesday 25 June 2008, Grant wrote:
Feel free to ignore me here, but if anyone could whip out a quick
script for this I would really appreciate it.
I need to move any files from dir1 to dir2 if they don't already
exist in dir2 with a slightly different filename. The dir1 files are
named like a-1.jpg and the dir2 files are named like
a-1_original.jpg.
- Grant
rough and ready, off the top of my head:
cd dir1
for i in *jpg
do
j = basename $i .jpg
cp -u ${j}.jpg dir2/${j}_original.jpg
done
'cp -u' works around the messy problem of checking if the destination
file exists
--
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Quick script request
Feel free to ignore me here, but if anyone could whip out a quick
script for this I would really appreciate it.
I need to move any files from dir1 to dir2 if they don't already
exist in dir2 with a slightly different filename. The dir1 files are
named like a-1.jpg and the dir2 files are named like
a-1_original.jpg.
- Grant
rough and ready, off the top of my head:
cd dir1
for i in *jpg
do
j = basename $i .jpg
cp -u ${j}.jpg dir2/${j}_original.jpg
done
'cp -u' works around the messy problem of checking if the destination
file exists
Thanks guys, can you tell me how to execute this? Put it in a file
and './file' I think? Should I have special stuff at the top of the
file?
- Grant
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Quick script request
Grant asks: Thanks guys, can you tell me how to execute this? Put it in a file and './file' I think? Should I have special stuff at the top of the file? Yes, a '#!/bin/bash', it you want top have thsi as a script. You need to make it executable, too: chmod +x file But you can also leave the #!/bin/bash out,l and call it like this: '. file' or 'source file'. This acts as if you typed the commands directly in the terminal. Which would be the easiest way to do it: Just mark the stuff in your mail program, ans paste it into you terminal. Wonko -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Quick script request
On Wednesday 25 June 2008, Grant wrote:
Feel free to ignore me here, but if anyone could whip out a quick
script for this I would really appreciate it.
I need to move any files from dir1 to dir2 if they don't already
exist in dir2 with a slightly different filename. The dir1 files
are named like a-1.jpg and the dir2 files are named like
a-1_original.jpg.
- Grant
rough and ready, off the top of my head:
cd dir1
for i in *jpg
do
j = basename $i .jpg
cp -u ${j}.jpg dir2/${j}_original.jpg
done
'cp -u' works around the messy problem of checking if the
destination file exists
Thanks guys, can you tell me how to execute this? Put it in a file
yes
and './file' I think?
Either that or chmod a+x file and execute it directly
Should I have special stuff at the top of the
file?
#!/bin/bash
--
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Quick script request
Feel free to ignore me here, but if anyone could whip out a quick
script for this I would really appreciate it.
I need to move any files from dir1 to dir2 if they don't already
exist in dir2 with a slightly different filename. The dir1 files
are named like a-1.jpg and the dir2 files are named like
a-1_original.jpg.
- Grant
rough and ready, off the top of my head:
cd dir1
for i in *jpg
do
j = basename $i .jpg
cp -u ${j}.jpg dir2/${j}_original.jpg
done
'cp -u' works around the messy problem of checking if the
destination file exists
Thanks guys, can you tell me how to execute this? Put it in a file
yes
and './file' I think?
Either that or chmod a+x file and execute it directly
Should I have special stuff at the top of the
file?
#!/bin/bash
I put the above script in a file, added the appropriate header, issued
chmod, and when I execute with ./file I get a bunch of these:
./script: line 6: j: command not found
cp: cannot stat `.jpg': No such file or directory
- Grant
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Quick script request
Grant asks:
cd dir1
for i in *jpg
do
j = basename $i .jpg
cp -u ${j}.jpg dir2/${j}_original.jpg
done
'cp -u' works around the messy problem of checking if the
destination file exists
[...]
I put the above script in a file, added the appropriate header, issued
chmod, and when I execute with ./file I get a bunch of these:
./script: line 6: j: command not found
cp: cannot stat `.jpg': No such file or directory
This:
j = basename $i .jpg
should be more like this:
j=$( basename $i .jpg )
Or: j=${i%.jpg}
That is, there must be no whitespace around the '='. And in order to set j
to the result of a command, use $( command ) or ` command `.
Wonko
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] loop-aes + extra-ciphers...
Am Mittwoch, 25. Juni 2008 schrieb Chris Walters: | Rumor has it that the three-letter agencies (CIA, KGB, M.A.V.O. [2], | etc) can break those algorithms relatively easy. On the other hand even | weaker algorithms can protect your data against laptop thieves. That's more than a rumor. Another three letter agency (NSA) has networks of supercomputers that can brute force a passphrase is little time. I am majoring in mathematics, and plan to specialize in cryptology. If it is so easy for them to crack our ciphers (and the one they use themselves, btw.), why doesn't Kasperky ask them to crack the key of the GPCode virus which, according to Kaspersky's assumptions, would keep 15 million modern PCs busy for a year. And, if it is so easy for them, it is as easy for other governments too, right? That would mean they use a cipher that's easily crackable by other governments. Do you really think they do? Bye... Dirk signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] CD/DVD burning tools?
Am Montag, 23. Juni 2008 schrieb Joerg Schilling: Be careful not to use forks but only official code. All known forks are full of bugs. In special: they come with extremely buggy mkisofs variants and they all have incomplete and broken DVD support (because the working original DVD support code has been completely relaced in the forks). FUD or Fact? Bye... Dirk signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Loop-AES versus DM-Crypt versus ???
Am Montag, 23. Juni 2008 schrieb Chris Walters: I might try LUKS. Does it have support for multi-key encryption? How about random key encryption? Hmm, didn't I mention this? Yes to both. See also http://luks.endorphin.org. Bye... Dirk signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] loop-aes + extra-ciphers...
Chris Walters [EMAIL PROTECTED] at Wednesday 25 June 2008, 17:14:20 | Rumor has it that the three-letter agencies (CIA, KGB, M.A.V.O. [2], | etc) can break those algorithms relatively easy. On the other hand even | weaker algorithms can protect your data against laptop thieves. You had better used the acronym FUD instead of the word rumor. US government itself has declared Rijndael 256 sufficient for classified information up to top secret. This level of security is shared among all AES finalists like RC6 or Serpent. That's more than a rumor. Another three letter agency (NSA) has networks of supercomputers that can brute force a passphrase is little time. Bruteforcing a _passphrase_ is not the same as bruteforcing a key. An both of these don't have nothing to do with the algorithm itself. They are side-attacks ... a weak passphrase is user idiocity, not a cipher weakness. It is not that I'm terribly paranoid about people getting my data, I just want to make it a little harder. What's the point in making the impossible even harder? Of course, it is always possible to insert code that will send the unencrypted data, once you've logged on - not easy for the casual user, but for the guru, an easy thing. That's operating system security and has nothing to do with cryptology. Someone having only your hard disk can't inject a rootkit into the system. -- Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters. (Rosa Luxemburg) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] loop-aes + extra-ciphers...
On Wednesday 25 June 2008, Dirk Heinrichs wrote: If it is so easy for them to crack our ciphers (and the one they use themselves, btw.), why doesn't Kasperky ask them to crack the key of the GPCode virus which, according to Kaspersky's assumptions, would keep 15 million modern PCs busy for a year. There's an interesting side possibility to that one. It's entirely plausible that the key used to encrypt all those poor sucker Windows user's files isn't just any old key, but rather a very important public key that matches a private key the bad guys would like to have - like a CA's private key. Maybe cracking that key isn't such a good idea after all. I think this is a case for hose-pipe decryption. -- Alan McKinnon alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Quick script request
cd dir1
for i in *jpg
do
j = basename $i .jpg
cp -u ${j}.jpg dir2/${j}_original.jpg
done
'cp -u' works around the messy problem of checking if the
destination file exists
[...]
I put the above script in a file, added the appropriate header, issued
chmod, and when I execute with ./file I get a bunch of these:
./script: line 6: j: command not found
cp: cannot stat `.jpg': No such file or directory
This:
j = basename $i .jpg
should be more like this:
j=$( basename $i .jpg )
Or: j=${i%.jpg}
That is, there must be no whitespace around the '='. And in order to set j
to the result of a command, use $( command ) or ` command `.
Worked perfectly, thanks a lot everyone.
- Grant
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] DVD drive firmware version
On Wednesday 25 June 2008, Grant wrote: Does anyone know how I can find the firmware version in my Lite-On DVD drive? I have an .exe file with the latest version. Impossible to use it? - Grant http://forum.rpc1.org/index.php usually freedos works fine for flashing. For some burners linux flash tools exist. Oh and the firmware version is also told by: dmesg hdparm -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Hi, I posted a similar e-mail a couple of weeks ago and got no response. I wish not to spam the mailing list, only for maybe a better luck this time. My CD ROM drive had stopped playing audio CD's. It still works fine, data CD's work alright and various programs manage to gather useful information about the audio CD's tracks, but I hear nothing. I checked all controls in alsamixer to be unmuted and at reasonable volume, but it's not it. I can't rip the CD's neither. Any ideas what might be wrong?
Re: [gentoo-user] loop-aes + extra-ciphers...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Sebastian Wiesner wrote: | Chris Walters [EMAIL PROTECTED] at Wednesday 25 June 2008, 17:14:20 | | | Rumor has it that the three-letter agencies (CIA, KGB, M.A.V.O. [2], | | etc) can break those algorithms relatively easy. On the other hand even | | weaker algorithms can protect your data against laptop thieves. | | You had better used the acronym FUD instead of the word rumor. US | government itself has declared Rijndael 256 sufficient for classified | information up to top secret. This level of security is shared among all | AES finalists like RC6 or Serpent. | | That's more than a rumor. Another three letter agency (NSA) has networks | of supercomputers that can brute force a passphrase is little time. | | Bruteforcing a _passphrase_ is not the same as bruteforcing a key. An both | of these don't have nothing to do with the algorithm itself. They are | side-attacks ... a weak passphrase is user idiocity, not a cipher | weakness. | | It is not that I'm terribly paranoid about people getting my data, I just | want to make it a little harder. | | What's the point in making the impossible even harder? | | Of course, it is always possible to insert code that will send the | unencrypted data, once you've logged on - not easy for the casual user, | but for the guru, an easy thing. | | That's operating system security and has nothing to do with cryptology. | Someone having only your hard disk can't inject a rootkit into the system. Are you a cryptology expert? By the way, nothing is impossible. The only thing that cryptography attempts to do is reduce the **probability** of cracking the key and gaining access to the data as low as possible. As for brute forcing a passphrase: Since most implementations of AES (Rijndael) use a hash of the passphrase to form the key, it amounts to the same thing, in practice, as cracking the key. Cryptology is, at least partly about finding the weakest link, because that is what is likely to be attacked in any cryptosystem. If the weakest link is system security or a weak passphrase, then that weakness translates to a weakness in anything encrypted in such an environment. The US Government only keeps classified information on non-networked computers in secure environments, so the cipher used does not matter as much as the other security measures taken to ensure that the data does not fall into the wrong hands. A final thought: It is a fact that both the US Navy and the NSA are *very* interested in cryptology and data security. The NSA also does have large networks of supercomputers that, using parallel, distributed or concurrent computing principles can crack keys more quickly than you may think. Regards, Chris -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJIYqmqAAoJEIAhA8M9p9DAIo8P/A17VwmkVsscVgfFzpCVDQbw 69WHMmoUvn5GasVRiM2JUi2UeEDpzCuLNxYlQglFWhyvsbplV3aiJmtzVdbEitsK hpf7Jt0wNvzi25Cye/j2DJlkGh7PTGRCkrMkoirgg+JTSFC21TzAnJZSUQH3Zhv8 Inb1C53jl8/RV1KTdPOX2W/hNo1VCPfpFnhxhad8fzj59pM1UwMVktwAQtO1JmOW fQm3/mSbeLyr0L5ZKPlc5shao/QVZ7Zo9xTDU8PFrBCmmt93MODGdbaOY7IsCmsl 6vWfWi1suV1a9ptPpU9ohn7YZtHlEboRMb4/mHCsj46SsI9cOo1KVLpqfiQZxd1t U1niZU8Cb67+cvEDcQ/q1eIGDMza01NR8UxtF66vHB8WrGKpLYs+ckHqJg9+hgF5 nUiY2RHeyNd3lh4vUWCY15Kh9OfK/LlL9IvGZV2Vpc066aa/EfC3AyiSSc+cMMx9 r4GQijL3wfKaDY9OUh6hJZcSZpBNTZezQ1sNZNMOm0TgDLGtJNMv5ltHjtZnxmbC Fus0IRrQVYvXT8ADZW80Ic256RWtUvn73WjBevYswa2T/Oc3o/NWc2sMrxEg8FVs a7nCa4ErSKIWRbMHTuTZLO3l6+XXjXm0sHk0qQ4JfFNkoV4gyMZq36HelAb2GsRu 7NJKaZIXlOCuNiYByLfp =wp+F -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] loop-aes + extra-ciphers...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Dirk Heinrichs wrote: | If it is so easy for them to crack our ciphers (and the one they use | themselves, btw.), why doesn't Kasperky ask them to crack the key of the | GPCode virus which, according to Kaspersky's assumptions, would keep 15 | million modern PCs busy for a year. | | And, if it is so easy for them, it is as easy for other governments too, | right? That would mean they use a cipher that's easily crackable by other | governments. Do you really think they do? I didn't say it was easy. All I said is that it is possible, with enough resources, to crack keys. I very much doubt that the NSA would be interested in cracking the key of the GPCode virus, since they are more directed to the National Security of the US. As for other governments, if they have large networks of supercomputers, and cryptanalysis experts, then it would probably be just as probable that they could crack any key from any publicly used cipher algorithm. Regards, Chris -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJIYqsOAAoJEIAhA8M9p9DAnswP+QEM14WCclfIljkDDhRGJ/uU d/XJMrw7wyJxJ+jodCARFlBjnyzMYTNShIaX9jgWWQFOC85XMFAcjjeVejP7bcd5 kfmJyJFJeT0omH/68Mw7tiyN4Ft+ldovSIj2iJKU8BkLszd0E+wizM7MvIrPKyq0 xj5xZNJyimd7zSCE+F6+OHQJ+GrlMMrOv0YWUd9FrfWBW/GB635EU1KDg1YKrn4v 8goRTdS/ImtcXJTttRbOLwSCwi66Cv2RgK6BACeSxzxxkODeHy/qnKSnppxMfPxD X4WZz+i6VW7+diUJuGojWyFooFTL/RjJOprmAWsNM4V1R0sVsHqzIzwGZSa/BzIM J5Yzj5LQGpceP0qOVz4fAw41rEVliYlVxQNxEhlxt53UN3tQ5pGvayasZD1mLz6A QDBZNuQkeC2ggxLPOWF6/qRiLgjFXxZ4viiEDagCGhveGdSqu78DVvlOtCbkw78D pRdSxIU9Uc77Z7N5ZPpckHooX4argKLiPkyBpuU9alEHZd6KdjdSdFF4pPx73101 0baSIp4Ato0AZ/wciu9RIAtKwuwtlZ8bzcm3CxKeRJ1Fr6kLVoa0w3r1RkW+/T+C hFiaLAoLfnqdUrSBDAVUuEkL8W3OOPr1SRsYY9Pp1XNykEPqIsmV+OWgzooDCJly hUV5npf+EK4AjE5n7nc7 =Cvzy -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Quick script request
On Wednesday 25 June 2008, Grant wrote:
This:
j = basename $i .jpg
should be more like this:
j=$( basename $i .jpg )
Or: j=${i%.jpg}
That is, there must be no whitespace around the '='. And in order
to set j to the result of a command, use $( command ) or ` command
`.
Worked perfectly, thanks a lot everyone.
Isn't there a little known and unused but very useful command that
already does this? This type of usage often comes up on mailing lists
and invariably someone mentions it after 20 posts or so, but I can
never remember what it is. Used a lot like rename, but that's not it.
--
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] loop-aes + extra-ciphers...
On Wednesday 25 June 2008, Chris Walters wrote: Dirk Heinrichs wrote: | If it is so easy for them to crack our ciphers (and the one they | use themselves, btw.), why doesn't Kasperky ask them to crack the | key of the GPCode virus which, according to Kaspersky's | assumptions, would keep 15 million modern PCs busy for a year. | | And, if it is so easy for them, it is as easy for other governments | too, right? That would mean they use a cipher that's easily | crackable by other governments. Do you really think they do? I didn't say it was easy. All I said is that it is possible, with enough resources, to crack keys. I very much doubt that the NSA would be interested in cracking the key of the GPCode virus, since they are more directed to the National Security of the US. As for other governments, if they have large networks of supercomputers, and cryptanalysis experts, then it would probably be just as probable that they could crack any key from any publicly used cipher algorithm. This is the point where I start to ask for a citation and stop listening to theoretical possibilities and things that might possibly could be. Unless of course the exact meaning of phrases like three hundred thousand million years has a different meaning in your universe than it does in mine. -- Alan McKinnon alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] loop-aes + extra-ciphers...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Alan McKinnon wrote: | On Wednesday 25 June 2008, Chris Walters wrote: | Dirk Heinrichs wrote: | | If it is so easy for them to crack our ciphers (and the one they | | use themselves, btw.), why doesn't Kasperky ask them to crack the | | key of the GPCode virus which, according to Kaspersky's | | assumptions, would keep 15 million modern PCs busy for a year. | | | | And, if it is so easy for them, it is as easy for other governments | | too, right? That would mean they use a cipher that's easily | | crackable by other governments. Do you really think they do? | | I didn't say it was easy. All I said is that it is possible, with | enough resources, to crack keys. I very much doubt that the NSA | would be interested in cracking the key of the GPCode virus, since | they are more directed to the National Security of the US. | | As for other governments, if they have large networks of | supercomputers, and cryptanalysis experts, then it would probably be | just as probable that they could crack any key from any publicly used | cipher algorithm. | | This is the point where I start to ask for a citation and stop listening | to theoretical possibilities and things that might possibly could be. | Unless of course the exact meaning of phrases like three hundred | thousand million years has a different meaning in your universe than | it does in mine. Whom are you asking for a citation from? For which particular facts? Do you really doubt that the US NSA has a *lot* of supercomputers? Do you really doubt that they have experts in mathematics, cryptology, cryptanalysis, and cryptography experts on staff? Or perhaps you doubt that they can crack any keys at all... Chris -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJIYrCEAAoJEIAhA8M9p9DANokQAMVlJk0AoEa11ixiLCeNrEo/ RHkuMpHYeBpEAbWKhqqwdPZPE4voBdT70pbJeK5MXCoMNGpUopW4vYdtEv6WA88Q LaPHdr9RdOf0n/7LLr6el61sbe41S5DRHLFnh63c83v0hSjyJVir+WoaOMGh0psG wUist2SyPos7rNrgSs0MeOKM2/qSCpC0OF3HZmMQhPXVQQHSWC03T14EX+dTtSeb +oxZ8aky0sqzfjvc84ep7zM9WUxN+JFR7bjokpzOwryiZt729nMxa3SATCcJWvhH 6RHtAK4gK9tXbZJ/70Um7D98lPLTeilImYIVAANhpkA/MwB8UN2d9BHxTdnZ5iCs GRWAMFllDUFKTmCnx0yXkdP/UQA0VuJeqE2dVv1gn0wUft93I9fxQcGKkGc2X3r3 Vz7crUhLgVZyasXXMe5IRBr6ZbBsSX/f/2zGaTG/jDpFBBVUqV5JE1LBds0uMwre zvsRicdAuNV2yzFYkkbOzDsupJClHqWv/xqO4gcQqArtYXuMgrPlaiF+nibW5aeM 0tZfFsZk+CE7HkpNx6GPVoCk1hTao5LfZhcx/HNk7e0v0OV4I6YkO7beFLPK4oNM FXA2xIskjqBjjuAviP59oO0sMJYwuxH4E/DCjjxscqkzowoBc401SauK/1eeuCG4 1MAYx/+jN69eWKxMTmZT =N/8S -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Xorg crashing when PC wake up from suspend-to-ram
This One Time, at Band Camp, Wael Nasreddine [EMAIL PROTECTED] said, On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 01:48:29PM +0200: Hey guys, When my PC wakes up from suspend-to-ram, X crashes, my video card is an intel 945GM. In ubuntu it works, I tried using Ubuntu's hal-info folder and I patched my Intel driver with all ubuntu patches but the problem still here, I can't figure out what is going on... I need a little help please... Xorg.0.log attached... /etc/X11/xorg.conf attached... Kernel-2.6.25-sabayon-r1 (config Attached) x11-base/xorg-server-1.4.2 x11-drivers/xf86-video-i810-2.3.2 sys-power/pm-utils-1.1.2.1 Regards, Come on guys a little help please!! I either have to keep my Laptop always turned on or shutdown/boot everytime I'm not using it... please I need some help!! -- Wael Nasreddine http://wael.nasreddine.com PGP: 1024D/C8DD18A2 06F6 1622 4BC8 4CEB D724 DE12 5565 3945 C8DD 18A2 /o\ Windows 95 is the most popular virus on the market today. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
On Wednesday 25 June 2008, Yoav Luft wrote: Hi, I posted a similar e-mail a couple of weeks ago and got no response. I wish not to spam the mailing list, only for maybe a better luck this time. My CD ROM drive had stopped playing audio CD's. It still works fine, data CD's work alright and various programs manage to gather useful information about the audio CD's tracks, but I hear nothing. I checked all controls in alsamixer to be unmuted and at reasonable volume, but it's not it. I can't rip the CD's neither. Any ideas what might be wrong? This looks like the two-wire cable between the CD ROM and your soundcard is missing or loose. I'd check this first. If this is a laptop, it might well be that the connection between the two subsystems was left out intentionally by the manufacturer to save a couple of cents. Some do that. :-( Uwe -- Ignorance killed the cat, sir, curiosity was framed! -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] loop-aes + extra-ciphers...
Chris Walters [EMAIL PROTECTED] at Wednesday 25 June 2008, 22:25:18 Are you a cryptology expert? Are you then? The only thing that cryptography attempts to do is reduce the **probability** of cracking the key and gaining access to the data as low as possible. No news. That's, why cryptology defines security not as being impossible to crack, but as being sufficiently improbable to crack. The only cipher, that can't be brute-forced, is the OTP, which is considered perfectly secure. As for brute forcing a passphrase: Since most implementations of AES (Rijndael) use a hash of the passphrase to form the key, it amounts to the same thing, in practice, as cracking the key. First of all, you can perform hard disk encryption _without_ a passphrase. You can store keyfiles on smart cards, usb sticks, etc. In this case, you can generate a _truely random_ key. Using a passphrase is the most insecure approach, but still, with a sufficiently random passphrase, you can gain a level of security, that even the NSA will find difficult to come around. The randomness of a 30-char passphrase does of course by far not match the randomness of a 256-bit key, so there is a real chance, that it can be guessed by brute force. Still it will take much cpu time, which is not endless, even to the NSA. In such a case, the question is, if the data, you ciphered, is really worth the effort of putting a super computer into work for a long time to try any possible passphrase. Cryptology is, at least partly about finding the weakest link, because that is what is likely to be attacked in any cryptosystem. Of course, absolutely true. Hard disk encryption is by far not perfect, just look at the cold boot attacks that gained public interest in the last time. But you didn't talk of _cryptosystems_ in your previous posts, you did talk about _algorithms_. Summarizing, the modern ciphers themselves are secure, as there is mostly no way to crack them save a brute-force attack on the key. On the other hand, cryptosystems built around these algorithms can of course contain weaknesses and holes, like weak passphrases, unsecure key storage, etc. The US Government only keeps classified information on non-networked computers in secure environments, so the cipher used does not matter as much as the other security measures taken to ensure that the data does not fall into the wrong hands. May be. I do not know, which restrictions apply to US classified data, I only know about official statements, the US government made towards the security of AES. A final thought: It is a fact that both the US Navy and the NSA are *very* interested in cryptology and data security. The NSA also does have large networks of supercomputers that, using parallel, distributed or concurrent computing principles can crack keys more quickly than you may think. You can use simple mathematics to find out, that even the largest super computers, having one peta flop, needs millions of years to perform an exhaustive search through AES key space. Anyway, you may believe, what you want to believe, I'm just reflecting, what real experts like Bruce Schneier have been telling for years: It's wrong to trust into simple ciphers, but it's equally wrong, to believe, that anything can be broken. my 2 cents -- Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters. (Rosa Luxemburg) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] loop-aes + extra-ciphers...
On Wednesday 25 June 2008, Chris Walters wrote: | This is the point where I start to ask for a citation and stop | listening to theoretical possibilities and things that might | possibly could be. Unless of course the exact meaning of phrases | like three hundred thousand million years has a different meaning | in your universe than it does in mine. Whom are you asking for a citation from? I'm asking you to back up your totally unsubstantiated assertions that the NSA et al can rapidly crack decent cryptography For which particular facts? Pick any one you like from your contribution to this thread. My favourite would be this one: A final thought: It is a fact that both the US Navy and the NSA are *very* interested in cryptology and data security. The NSA also does have large networks of supercomputers that, using parallel, distributed or concurrent computing principles can crack keys more quickly than you may think. Now that's a pretty definite statement you made there. So, how quickly do you think I think they can do it? And how quickly can they actually do it? Do you really doubt that the US NSA has a *lot* of supercomputers? Not at all, in fact I would hazard an educated guess that the NSA is the largest consumer of supercomputers in the world, and also that they are very reluctant to advertise the fact. I doubt any of their machines appear on the Top500 list. I say this as a natural deduction from knowing what they are mandated to do and how they would realistically go about doing it. Do you really doubt that they have experts in mathematics, cryptology, cryptanalysis, and cryptography experts on staff? Not at all, I would be stupid indeed to doubt that. As evidence, one only has to look at the vast amount of technical literature the NSA has published on the subject. Or perhaps you doubt that they can crack any keys at all... Don't get smart with me, jackass. Everyone here who knows a bit about cryptography knows that give enough time and resources any key can be cracked. I asked you to do a perfectly reasonable thing. You are asserting that the NSA can crack keys quickly, much quicker than the average geek thinks they can do it, but you provide no evidence of this other than your own assertion of it. You didn't even give any evidence of why I should consider you a credible and knowledgeable person in the field. Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary evidence and all that. I see 4 scenarios here: 1. You are perfectly correct and can back it up. In which case I'd like to read the evidence. 2. You are perfectly correct and have the evidence but cannot show it to me due to national security or NDA. That's fine, but do say so. 3. You are presenting your knowledgeable hunch/gut feel/opinion/hearsay evidence as fact. that's also fine, but do say so. 4. You are simply making stuff up in varying degrees. -- Alan McKinnon alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
on Wednesday 06/25/2008 Uwe Thiem([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote On Wednesday 25 June 2008, Yoav Luft wrote: Hi, I posted a similar e-mail a couple of weeks ago and got no response. I wish not to spam the mailing list, only for maybe a better luck this time. My CD ROM drive had stopped playing audio CD's. It still works fine, data CD's work alright and various programs manage to gather useful information about the audio CD's tracks, but I hear nothing. I checked all controls in alsamixer to be unmuted and at reasonable volume, but it's not it. I can't rip the CD's neither. Any ideas what might be wrong? This looks like the two-wire cable between the CD ROM and your soundcard is missing or loose. I'd check this first. If this is a laptop, it might well be that the connection between the two subsystems was left out intentionally by the manufacturer to save a couple of cents. Some do that. :-( I am having the same problem -- but additionally my CDROM has no place to even put such a cable -- at least according to the person who actually put the machine together. I have not opened up the box to check, but if so, what can I do to play cds? -- Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: How do you spend it? John Covici [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] loop-aes + extra-ciphers...
Alan McKinnon wrote: Or perhaps you doubt that they can crack any keys at all... Don't get smart with me, jackass. Fuck off, shitehead. Call me a jackass, when I simply state facts you admitted to? You're a fucking idiot. Welcome to my ignore list. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] loop-aes + extra-ciphers...
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Sebastian Wiesner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Walters [EMAIL PROTECTED] at Wednesday 25 June 2008, 22:25:18 Are you a cryptology expert? Are you then? I doubt that either of you are cryptology experts. I've known a few, and I am a crypto-expert, who has worked for the government of the US. The only thing that cryptography attempts to do is reduce the **probability** of cracking the key and gaining access to the data as low as possible. No news. That's, why cryptology defines security not as being impossible to crack, but as being sufficiently improbable to crack. The only cipher, that can't be brute-forced, is the OTP, which is considered perfectly secure. There is no such thing as perfectly secure, but a cipher algorithm that would take *all* the computers on Earth a year or more to crack is pretty secure. As for brute forcing a passphrase: Since most implementations of AES (Rijndael) use a hash of the passphrase to form the key, it amounts to the same thing, in practice, as cracking the key. First of all, you can perform hard disk encryption _without_ a passphrase. You can store keyfiles on smart cards, usb sticks, etc. In this case, you can generate a _truely random_ key. Using a passphrase is the most insecure approach, but still, with a sufficiently random passphrase, you can gain a level of security, that even the NSA will find difficult to come around. The randomness of a 30-char passphrase does of course by far not match the randomness of a 256-bit key, so there is a real chance, that it can be guessed by brute force. Still it will take much cpu time, which is not endless, even to the NSA. I don't think I can really comment on this, except to say that smart cards and usb thumb drives are the way to go for security. As long as you can keep control of the device. In such a case, the question is, if the data, you ciphered, is really worth the effort of putting a super computer into work for a long time to try any possible passphrase. Mr. Walters' claim is not that they would put a single super-computer to decrypting it, but a network of supercomputers. I truly don't think you have to worry about that occurring, unless you are deemed a danger to US National Security. Even then, AES is very hard to crack. The major weakness is the person who encrypts the data. Under questioning, most will give up their keys. Cryptology is, at least partly about finding the weakest link, because that is what is likely to be attacked in any cryptosystem. Of course, absolutely true. Hard disk encryption is by far not perfect, just look at the cold boot attacks that gained public interest in the last time. But you didn't talk of _cryptosystems_ in your previous posts, you did talk about _algorithms_. By themselves algorithms are relatively useless. It is only the application of those algorithms that make them useful. In this case, Mr. Walters pointed out how *NOT* to apply cipher algorithms. Some of the ways, anyway. Summarizing, the modern ciphers themselves are secure, as there is mostly no way to crack them save a brute-force attack on the key. On the other hand, cryptosystems built around these algorithms can of course contain weaknesses and holes, like weak passphrases, unsecure key storage, etc. The US Government only keeps classified information on non-networked computers in secure environments, so the cipher used does not matter as much as the other security measures taken to ensure that the data does not fall into the wrong hands. May be. I do not know, which restrictions apply to US classified data, I only know about official statements, the US government made towards the security of AES. I can neither confirm nor deny Mr. Walters' statement. I will state that the United States Government does, in fact, use ciphers to communicate with Embassies, Military Camps and Bases abroad, and Naval vessels. That hardly fits Mr. Walters' statement. A final thought: It is a fact that both the US Navy and the NSA are *very* interested in cryptology and data security. The NSA also does have large networks of supercomputers that, using parallel, distributed or concurrent computing principles can crack keys more quickly than you may think. You can use simple mathematics to find out, that even the largest super computers, having one peta flop, needs millions of years to perform an exhaustive search through AES key space. Anyway, you may believe, what you want to believe, I'm just reflecting, what real experts like Bruce Schneier have been telling for years: It's wrong to trust into simple ciphers, but it's equally wrong, to believe, that anything can be broken. It is equally wrong to believe that any cipher is immune to attack, but it is not nearly as easy as Mr. Walters would have you believe. my 2 cents My nickel... Jase
[gentoo-user] Security of ciphers.
I've been reading this thread in the archives, on loop-aes and then the security of AES. I hate to jump on the bandwagon, so before I do, I will state that I *am* a crypto-expert, and have worked for the several government entities in the US. I am not at liberty to tell you which ones. Mr. Walters: It is not all that easy to crack a *secure* key with the AES-256 cipher. This holds true, even with networks of super-computers. Just how many of them do you think the NSA (you named it), has to spare for things like that? Parallel and distributed computing does not help much with AES, since it is a CBC cipher algorithm (look it up). I think you need to do some research on the subject you say you're majoring in, before you post on the topic, Mr. Walters. Jase
Re: [gentoo-user] loop-aes + extra-ciphers...
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Chris Walters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alan McKinnon wrote: Or perhaps you doubt that they can crack any keys at all... Don't get smart with me, jackass. Fuck off, shitehead. Call me a jackass, when I simply state facts you admitted to? You're a fucking idiot. Welcome to my ignore list. Now that was TOTALLY UNCALLED FOR! All he asked you to do is prove your ludicrous statements about the NSA being able to crack any key in a short amount of time. Wait for my private mail, Mr. Walters. Jase
Re: [gentoo-user] PEACE!!!
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:51:53 -0400 Chris Walters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alan McKinnon wrote: Or perhaps you doubt that they can crack any keys at all... Don't get smart with me, jackass. Fuck off, shitehead. Call me a jackass, when I simply state facts you admitted to? You're a fucking idiot. Welcome to my ignore list. WOW! Both of you! Come on, guys! What is this? I've never seen such thing here for all the years I'm on the list. Please calm down, we are supposed to be friends here, right? -- Best regards, Daniel -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] loop-aes + extra-ciphers...
Jason Rivard [EMAIL PROTECTED] at Wednesday 25 June 2008, 23:53:23 The only thing that cryptography attempts to do is reduce the **probability** of cracking the key and gaining access to the data as low as possible. No news. That's, why cryptology defines security not as being impossible to crack, but as being sufficiently improbable to crack. The only cipher, that can't be brute-forced, is the OTP, which is considered perfectly secure. There is no such thing as perfectly secure, A OTP cannot be broken using brute force, so the term perfectly secure fits here, imho, at least a bit ;) In such a case, the question is, if the data, you ciphered, is really worth the effort of putting a super computer into work for a long time to try any possible passphrase. Mr. Walters' claim is not that they would put a single super-computer to decrypting it, but a network of supercomputers. Does that difference really matter for ciphers like AES or at least for brute-force attacks on random 256-bit keys? I truly don't think you have to worry about that occurring, unless you are deemed a danger to US National Security. Even then, AES is very hard to crack. The major weakness is the person who encrypts the data. Under questioning, most will give up their keys. Cryptology is, at least partly about finding the weakest link, because that is what is likely to be attacked in any cryptosystem. Of course, absolutely true. Hard disk encryption is by far not perfect, just look at the cold boot attacks that gained public interest in the last time. But you didn't talk of _cryptosystems_ in your previous posts, you did talk about _algorithms_. By themselves algorithms are relatively useless. It is only the application of those algorithms that make them useful. Still, there is a difference between the algorithm as such and a cryptosystem applying this algorithm. Btw, apart from general stuff like weak passphrases, that apply to most cryptosystems, really bad leaks often came from weak algorithms. Consider WEP. A final thought: It is a fact that both the US Navy and the NSA are *very* interested in cryptology and data security. The NSA also does have large networks of supercomputers that, using parallel, distributed or concurrent computing principles can crack keys more quickly than you may think. You can use simple mathematics to find out, that even the largest super computers, having one peta flop, needs millions of years to perform an exhaustive search through AES key space. Anyway, you may believe, what you want to believe, I'm just reflecting, what real experts like Bruce Schneier have been telling for years: It's wrong to trust into simple ciphers, but it's equally wrong, to believe, that anything can be broken. It is equally wrong to believe that any cipher is immune to attack I don't and I did not say so, things like the Debian disaster bring you back to reality from dreams ... -- Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters. (Rosa Luxemburg) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] gnucash pulls in firefox (when I already have firefox-bin)
At Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:17:36 +0100 Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yelp is pulling in firefox because you do not have xulrunner in USE. firefox-bin is no use, the program needs the header files for either firefox or xulrunner. The current recommendation is to use xulrunner instead of firefox in this situation, and in your USE flags. Neil, I am currently having no problems. I use gnucash extensively and use firefox (not -bin) as well. Is the recommendation to switch and add xulrunner to USE? If the purpose is to avoid the need for firefox, that is not relevant to me. If, however, xulrunner in some way improves gnucash, I might well want to try it. thanks in advance and thanks for all your previous help and thoughtful comments. allan -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] loop-aes + extra-ciphers...
On Wednesday 25 June 2008, Jason Rivard wrote: Wait for my private mail, Mr. Walters. I wouldn't bother with a private mail Jason. Tomorrow Chris will calm down, take a deep breath and probably contribute to the list again. It pretty much always works that way. Maybe he's quick to anger. Well, so am I sometimes. But he certainly does not belong in that class of people who have nothing useful to contribute. -- Alan McKinnon alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] gnucash pulls in firefox (when I already have firefox-bin)
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:40:41 -0400, Allan Gottlieb wrote: yelp is pulling in firefox because you do not have xulrunner in USE. firefox-bin is no use, the program needs the header files for either firefox or xulrunner. The current recommendation is to use xulrunner instead of firefox in this situation, and in your USE flags. I am currently having no problems. I use gnucash extensively and use firefox (not -bin) as well. Is the recommendation to switch and add xulrunner to USE? If the purpose is to avoid the need for firefox, that is not relevant to me. If, however, xulrunner in some way improves gnucash, I might well want to try it. It is to avoid the need for Firefox 2 installed from source, which is a problem if you use Firefox 3 or firefox-bin. the xulrunner flag make GnuCash, and other apps, build against xunrunner instead of the firefox 2 headers. -- Neil Bothwick Top Oxymorons Number 22: Childproof signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] gnucash pulls in firefox (when I already have firefox-bin)
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:40:41 -0400, Allan Gottlieb wrote: yelp is pulling in firefox because you do not have xulrunner in USE. firefox-bin is no use, the program needs the header files for either firefox or xulrunner. The current recommendation is to use xulrunner instead of firefox in this situation, and in your USE flags. I am currently having no problems. I use gnucash extensively and use firefox (not -bin) as well. Is the recommendation to switch and add xulrunner to USE? If the purpose is to avoid the need for firefox, that is not relevant to me. If, however, xulrunner in some way improves gnucash, I might well want to try it. It is to avoid the need for Firefox 2 installed from source, which is a problem if you use Firefox 3 or firefox-bin. the xulrunner flag make GnuCash, and other apps, build against xunrunner instead of the firefox 2 headers. Also, if you're going to use FF3, with xulrunner, FF3 will compile against xulrunner, thus reducing the FF3 build to time to a few minutes, as the LONG build already happened with xulrunner... -James -- Neil Bothwick Top Oxymorons Number 22: Childproof -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] gnucash pulls in firefox (when I already have firefox-bin)
At Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:46:44 -0700 James Ausmus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:40:41 -0400, Allan Gottlieb wrote: yelp is pulling in firefox because you do not have xulrunner in USE. firefox-bin is no use, the program needs the header files for either firefox or xulrunner. The current recommendation is to use xulrunner instead of firefox in this situation, and in your USE flags. I am currently having no problems. I use gnucash extensively and use firefox (not -bin) as well. Is the recommendation to switch and add xulrunner to USE? If the purpose is to avoid the need for firefox, that is not relevant to me. If, however, xulrunner in some way improves gnucash, I might well want to try it. It is to avoid the need for Firefox 2 installed from source, which is a problem if you use Firefox 3 or firefox-bin. the xulrunner flag make GnuCash, and other apps, build against xunrunner instead of the firefox 2 headers. Also, if you're going to use FF3, with xulrunner, FF3 will compile against xulrunner, thus reducing the FF3 build to time to a few minutes, as the LONG build already happened with xulrunner... I see. When FF3 becomes stable, I will turn on xulrunner. Thanks for the explanations. allan -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] 答复: [gentoo-user] Atheros 5xxx driver in kernel 2.6.24-gentoo-r5
Finally, I emerged madwifi-ng and the WLAN card works. Add if I do the cmd manually: # /etc/init.d/net.ath0 start the interface can get IP address from dhcp normally. But when I add the net. ath0 to the runlevel default and reboot, it cannot obtain the IP information with dhcpcd... That means I have to run the network restart script every time the system boots... Can you give me some advices about this? # cat /etc/conf.d/net # This blank configuration will automatically use DHCP for any net.* # scripts in /etc/init.d. To create a more complete configuration, # please review /etc/conf.d/net.example and save your configuration # in /etc/conf.d/net (this file :]!). # config_eth0=( dhcp ) # dhcp_eth0=nonis nontp modules=( iwconfig ) key_xx=[1] ------cc key [1] enc restricted preferred_aps=( xx ) config_ath0=( dhcp ) dhcp_ath0=nonis nontp Thank you very much. Zhou -邮件原件- 发件人: Kan-I Jyo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 发送时间: 2008年6月24日 17:15 收件人: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org 主题: Re: [gentoo-user] Atheros 5xxx driver in kernel 2.6.24-gentoo-r5 2008/6/24 Zhou Rui [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Thanks for your help, but I'm still puzzled with the madwifi driver and the build-in ath5k driver. Does it mean if I choose to install a madwifi driver I can still use my 2.6.24 kernel? Though ath5k driver will eventually replace the madwifi driver according to the development team, surely you can use your current 2.6.24 kernel with madwifi-ng package in portage. However, as Dirk has mentioned, the driver may or may not work with your card. So you may have to give it a try. But the problem is I cannot find the non-hamradio WLAN option in current kernel either... If the How to install madwifi gentoo wiki page is what you are reffering to, it may be a little bit out of date. You can take a look on madwifi.org's web page for an up-to-date requirements. http://madwifi.org/wiki/Requirements -- Sincerely, Jyo -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] loop-aes
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:40:08 -0400 Chris Walters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My original question was: Does anyone know how to compile the extra-ciphers package that you can find on the loop-aes SourceForge site. The following works here: 1) ebuild `equery w loop-aes` unpack 2) cd $PORTDIR/sys-fs/loop-aes-version/work/loop-AES-version/ 3) make EXTRA_CIPHERS=y 4) cd ../../ 5) touch .compiled 6) cd 7) ebuild `equery w loop-aes` merge (I actually stopped only up to step 3, but it finished w/o error) Since you said something about lack of documentation about loop-aes, have you already found this? http://loop-aes.sourceforge.net/loop-AES.README NOTE: In order to support AES and other ciphers, mount, umount, losetup, swapon and swapoff need to be patched and recompiled. There's a hope - Gentoo may provide a patched version of util-linux. In case those tools are not already patched I wouldn't go that far on a system which is not especially dedicated for this encryption test of yours. HTH -- Best regards, Daniel -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Some (and only some) multimedia audio broke in the last few of updates on two of my systems with cmi chipsets - I had to select IEC958 Monitor before I got sound back. Might be the same thing. and no, I am not using digital output. If this doesnt help you, might help someone else as it was a pita to find the cause as I am not using the digital outputs from the card. BillK On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 23:21 +0300, Yoav Luft wrote: Hi, I posted a similar e-mail a couple of weeks ago and got no response. I wish not to spam the mailing list, only for maybe a better luck this time. My CD ROM drive had stopped playing audio CD's. It still works fine, data CD's work alright and various programs manage to gather useful information about the audio CD's tracks, but I hear nothing. I checked all controls in alsamixer to be unmuted and at reasonable volume, but it's not it. I can't rip the CD's neither. Any ideas what might be wrong? -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Quick script request
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:42:47 +0200 Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't there a little known and unused but very useful command that already does this? This type of usage often comes up on mailing lists and invariably someone mentions it after 20 posts or so, but I can never remember what it is. Used a lot like rename, but that's not it. I believe you are talking about the rename (1) command, but this case is a little bit different. :) -- Best regards, Daniel -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Xorg crashing when PC wake up from suspend-to-ram
Try tuxonice instead of the in-kernel suspend - never been able to get in-kernel to work on any of my systems. Other than ToI and gentoo-sources-2.6.25-r5, the software versions are the same You are using sabayon? - tried their mailing lists? BillK On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 22:57 +0200, Wael Nasreddine wrote: This One Time, at Band Camp, Wael Nasreddine [EMAIL PROTECTED] said, On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 01:48:29PM +0200: Hey guys, When my PC wakes up from suspend-to-ram, X crashes, my video card is an intel 945GM. In ubuntu it works, I tried using Ubuntu's hal-info folder and I patched my Intel driver with all ubuntu patches but the problem still here, I can't figure out what is going on... I need a little help please... Xorg.0.log attached... /etc/X11/xorg.conf attached... Kernel-2.6.25-sabayon-r1 (config Attached) x11-base/xorg-server-1.4.2 x11-drivers/xf86-video-i810-2.3.2 sys-power/pm-utils-1.1.2.1 Regards, Come on guys a little help please!! I either have to keep my Laptop always turned on or shutdown/boot everytime I'm not using it... please I need some help!! -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] My last words on cryptology and cryptography.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Sebastian Wiesner wrote: | Jason Rivard [EMAIL PROTECTED] at Wednesday 25 June 2008, 23:53:23 [snip] | A OTP cannot be broken using brute force, so the term perfectly secure | fits here, imho, at least a bit ;) A OTP cipher would be *theoretically* impossible to crack, even given infinite computing power. I use the word theoretically here because this perfect security of OTP depends on a purely theoretical perfect setting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad | Does that difference really matter for ciphers like AES or at least for | brute-force attacks on random 256-bit keys? The key word here is random. Nothing generated by your computer can generate pure entropy, only a good representation of it. Now if you have a computer network at your disposal, and can get the computers working in parallel or in a distributed manner, you will notice that tasks are completed much faster than with one computer working on that task. A network of supercomputers would be able to, in a sense, either work on breaking a single key at a time (assuming CBC with keys = blocks), then you could decrypt the message one block at a time. I did not say it would be very fast, just faster than many people would like to assume. [snip] | Still, there is a difference between the algorithm as such and a | cryptosystem applying this algorithm. | | Btw, apart from general stuff like weak passphrases, that apply to most | cryptosystems, really bad leaks often came from weak algorithms. Consider | WEP. An algorithm is just a recipe - a set of steps to achieve a task. The implementation is the *only* thing that counts. A weak implementation of AES256 would lead to a weak cryptosystem. While a strong implementation would, theoretically, lead to a strong cryptosystem. I will state my view as a programmer. An algorithm is next to useless without a working application that uses it. As an aside, let us say you use a USB thumb drive or the like to store a master key, from which cryptographically random quality keys are derived. There would be two weak points in that system. You, and the thumb drive. If any entity can get you, your computer and your thumb drive, your data could be decrypted without the need for a supercomputer. [snip] | Anyway, you may believe, what you want to believe, I'm just reflecting, | what | real experts like Bruce Schneier have been telling for years: It's | wrong to trust into simple ciphers, but it's equally wrong, to believe, | that anything can be broken. | It is equally wrong to believe that any cipher is immune to attack | | I don't and I did not say so, things like the Debian disaster bring you back | to reality from dreams ... With desktop computing power and speed growing at the rate that it currently is, does it stretch the imagination so much that supercomputer power and speed is also growing at a similar rate. Even if an AES256 key cannot be broken in a million years by one supercomputer (*I* would like to see a citation for that), there will soon be a time when it will be able to be cracked in a much shorter time - with one supercomputer. Regards, Chris -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJIYv1LAAoJEIAhA8M9p9DAK44P/2ikcuihfTj6OgArcNvJUHNK m1qwKpk8dRkkeeLQsNZJzZtd00Gv03dkV0pD3sEfzVlKl9TIaoMheJ4D+XqHuorA ojFfWjcV7eFs5C5rMpvyb96fQ+m98bfRuGNlwnb3Jwy82ehGsxdM3VuVQEgojsyi TmFIuoS9moZrecLn+Smap5SxSvFmSdHpZ/sy0vbN78+58vvP/Fuq+uoqdz5fZcJH HwPu+8euaabBOiiPBXInRYYCfSdDqS/X9VuUzetRIhU15B+yijBesDmeo9BjB3oi ING3XFtbXiQ94/Kjzfz3Bx5MGotm2npM4H8TIr1SQSpB57j8+VHy+EepFWEjN3Dj hh8D3d4hpw64oBi6Gj+P0b/4QYkot1yBdQvXXeAt7oappQ0QsFXv1CDvGS8tDQ9f WWv9IXQ/1EaeQYPLVEv8kSuTxgqte4EcvpUJpIZ9Ku4Z8PGh50Bc2Y2AGlszezxk IIk7eI/Z2wJquQ7+A8QLGpiuM2+2WDfrfdh/kvX4AZS6mYm/a2V95K9oPPGTqDgp R5HwGW69hANARhdJAQg/GZFMrsi3BFGMDtj1EIVnWwXS1W3cAFZFIWJHWuBf0c06 5aQjYQNq055eUe1QvsIf0v3eyuG1QiOazb+0FaDJ1u9wrgsYQ7G1hR9uVBCxyWz7 moYaBh171qt40nMFrp8u =ond2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] loop-aes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Daniel Iliev wrote: | On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:40:08 -0400 | Chris Walters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | | My original question was: Does anyone know how to compile the | extra-ciphers package that you can find on the loop-aes SourceForge | site. | | The following works here: | | 1) ebuild `equery w loop-aes` unpack | | 2) cd $PORTDIR/sys-fs/loop-aes-version/work/loop-AES-version/ | | 3) make EXTRA_CIPHERS=y | | 4) cd ../../ | | 5) touch .compiled | | 6) cd | | 7) ebuild `equery w loop-aes` merge | | | (I actually stopped only up to step 3, but it finished w/o error) | | | Since you said something about lack of documentation about loop-aes, | have you already found this? | | http://loop-aes.sourceforge.net/loop-AES.README | | | NOTE: In order to support AES and other ciphers, mount, umount, | losetup, swapon and swapoff need to be patched and | recompiled. | | There's a hope - Gentoo may provide a patched version of util-linux. | In case those tools are not already patched I wouldn't go that far on | a system which is not especially dedicated for this encryption test of | yours. Thanks for this. I will give it a try, when I get a chance. It is not really an encryption test, as you put it, so much as it is frustration at not being able to get the extra ciphers to compile. Oh, and Gentoo already patches util-linux with the patch from loop-aes. One big problem that people are experiencing right now it that since the testing version of util-linux got bumped up, the old patch will not work anymore - this has to be fixed upstream, but I doubt they will do so until the new version of util-linux is proven stable. For some reason, the 2.6.24 kernel patch works with the 2.6.25 version of the kernel, probably because the files it changes have not yet changed. Regards, Chris -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJIYv89AAoJEIAhA8M9p9DABGIP/AkFjbXRxbpU3NP7PDxDJcSh q9YrrbF6Nma/LswbRGxZDk1wnze0r9Ger2j/irqzH1dscYsCYFmY5wYX2JhxYq4t CxdkV3WcbJ2QfhHmxoPbO1trz4lpfdyS3aG32RquIXVFfLG/gsSkD0m9j3l+UuG8 SatydhlezVfBKiMyIYEtZWbCf6Hm/rgAeLTSmMaqVAVkbwisdr6Kn3h1VGRlSxOO 8dPwwf0mu+zB+tydbpEPzIhpJJYEPtUoWYy6FhPJbCDj7IWDaMDjymCcaikPz88Q dHqn9gVTC0K5oI7nBJFAaryAu3p+h6QSQuBMSXHSJZ2GHNvRt7qduH/r+XfuIJcZ 3wnQ5vKbUSXDaDmnCWaG/UjXV1C60lyDDn6fh9AjxdvuqfmSur3DdunUCyupwtg2 51RPc3JxCSYPiop8NG1MYhO7qv5Z6R1NJg1VH9KwVPUVlB8K2KdE3RAmhzL6xC27 RkYHI4yLEN2CwThBG/kRmvc4MBAHTc7dY/fm/XZrsLhDzLIAGawKtOVaubNRID9Q m8GmyGMNyjhEpdra79aL9NUeNcZEyD12bJG/5OlFdl4nbeqCjVV+gok9ELNo3UIM g6mb2mPG/EiMgk0imKbVqjdmnlUKK5Wk3609NGEXPUmtN4pWvPgQPC0W8XQUg6dI NTZ/d7Lu23tw2t7lSoTj =2CfF -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] loop-aes
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:30:25 -0400 Chris Walters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | The following works here: | | 1) ebuild `equery w loop-aes` unpack | | 2) cd $PORTDIR/sys-fs/loop-aes-version/work/loop-AES-version/ | | 3) make EXTRA_CIPHERS=y | | 4) cd ../../ | | 5) touch .compiled | | 6) cd | | 7) ebuild `equery w loop-aes` merge | | | (I actually stopped only up to step 3, but it finished w/o error) | | | Since you said something about lack of documentation about loop-aes, | have you already found this? | | http://loop-aes.sourceforge.net/loop-AES.README | | | NOTE: In order to support AES and other ciphers, mount, umount, | losetup, swapon and swapoff need to be patched and | recompiled. | | There's a hope - Gentoo may provide a patched version of util-linux. | In case those tools are not already patched I wouldn't go that far | on a system which is not especially dedicated for this encryption | test of yours. Thanks for this. I will give it a try, when I get a chance. Sorry, from your reply I saw there's an error in my message: Step 2 should read: $PORTAGE_TMPDIR/portage instead of $PORTDIR Anyways you'll see the correct directory for your system from the output of ebuild unpack. My apologies and good luck. -- Best regards, Daniel -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Yoav Luft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I posted a similar e-mail a couple of weeks ago and got no response. I wish not to spam the mailing list, only for maybe a better luck this time. My CD ROM drive had stopped playing audio CD's. It still works fine, data CD's work alright and various programs manage to gather useful information about the audio CD's tracks, but I hear nothing. I checked all controls in alsamixer to be unmuted and at reasonable volume, but it's not it. I can't rip the CD's neither. Any ideas what might be wrong? This may not help, but I haven't used the analog or digital cable from the cdrom to the soundcard to play audio cds in over 5 years; every software player I've ever used just read the audio data directly from the cdrom. -- - Mark Shields
re: [gentoo-user] Atheros 5xxx driver in kernel 2.6.24-gentoo-r5
Finally, I emerged madwifi-ng and the WLAN card works. Add if I do the cmd manually: # /etc/init.d/net.ath0 start the interface can get IP address from dhcp normally. But when I add the net. ath0 to the runlevel default and reboot, it cannot obtain the IP information with dhcpcd... That means I have to run the network restart script every time the system boots... Can you give me some advices about this? # cat /etc/conf.d/net # This blank configuration will automatically use DHCP for any net.* # scripts in /etc/init.d. To create a more complete configuration, # please review /etc/conf.d/net.example and save your configuration # in /etc/conf.d/net (this file :]!). # config_eth0=( dhcp ) # dhcp_eth0=nonis nontp modules=( iwconfig ) key_xx=[1] ------cc key [1] enc restricted preferred_aps=( xx ) config_ath0=( dhcp ) dhcp_ath0=nonis nontp Thank you very much. Zhou -邮件原件- 发件人: Kan-I Jyo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 发送时间: 2008年6月24日 17:15 收件人: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org 主题: Re: [gentoo-user] Atheros 5xxx driver in kernel 2.6.24-gentoo-r5 2008/6/24 Zhou Rui [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Thanks for your help, but I'm still puzzled with the madwifi driver and the build-in ath5k driver. Does it mean if I choose to install a madwifi driver I can still use my 2.6.24 kernel? Though ath5k driver will eventually replace the madwifi driver according to the development team, surely you can use your current 2.6.24 kernel with madwifi-ng package in portage. However, as Dirk has mentioned, the driver may or may not work with your card. So you may have to give it a try. But the problem is I cannot find the non-hamradio WLAN option in current kernel either... If the How to install madwifi gentoo wiki page is what you are reffering to, it may be a little bit out of date. You can take a look on madwifi.org's web page for an up-to-date requirements. http://madwifi.org/wiki/Requirements -- Sincerely, Jyo -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] openoffice dictionaries
Is there are way to use the proper openoffice dictionaries in OO? 'eselect' does not offer any alternatives to the myspell dictionaries and there is no relevant USE flag. As well as forcing OO to use myspell only (the OO built in dictionary wizard is removed), there are some other problems with this kludge. The myspell ones do not seem to work as well as the OO ones (for en_AU) and you cannot select a user dictionary and have it stay selected. As I open and close documents all day long, its it is very annoying to have to continually open the user dictionary every time. I presume this is a consequence of the myspell change as it worked properly before then. I'll raise some bugs on this but thought I might have missed an easy fix, so am asking here first. I must have opened documents 20 time so far today and its been so annoying I am looking at fixing it :( BillK -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
On 25 Jun 2008, at 22:01, Uwe Thiem wrote: ... This looks like the two-wire cable between the CD ROM and your soundcard is missing or loose. As it bloody well should be. An analogue cable is not fixing the problem. It has for years been possible to play music from a CD-ROM connected by only the EIDE cable. Stroller. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
