On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 20:13, gl...@rempe.us said:
> I would suggest you also look at doing HSTS browser preload now that
> you have long duration HSTS and a good modern TLS suite. It would
I considered this ...
> require being applied to sub-domains as well I think which you may or
but can't do t
I also see the kind reply by Anthony at:
https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2017-January/057584.html
but it's not yet in my mailbox...
I must go to sleep, so I opened this issue with the repo:
PGP key not on (usual) keyservers #143
https://github.com/Synzvato/decentraleyes/issues/143
(
On January 30, 2017 6:42:22 PM EST, Miroslav Rovis
wrote:
>I'm reviving this end-of-last-year thread, because...
>
>It's this repo, where the latest two tags are PGP-signed:
>https://github.com/Synzvato/decentraleyes/tags
>
>Can anybody check if maybe they can get that key from the keyservers?
I
This mail is already at:
https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2017-January/057582.html
( and this is a reply to: Message-ID: <20170130234222.GA14408@g0n.xdwgrp> )
but when you server with Microsoft... well, it's not very reliable ( 80%
of Croatia is occupied by one provider and they serve
I'm reviving this end-of-last-year thread, because...
On 161228-15:42+0100, NdK wrote:
> Il 28/12/2016 13:28, Miroslav Rovis ha scritto:
>
> >> The fact that Github, since this outgoing year, accept gpg signing only
> >> if you post your public key to their servers.
> I can't say for sure, but ma
Am 30.01.2017 um 18:22 schrieb Werner Koch:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 11:56, w...@gnupg.org said:
>
>> I am working on that. But please given me a few days. I want to align
>
> Time warp: All servers updated. Sslabs rating is now A+ (respective A
> for those without HSTS). The used pound versio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 30.01.17 18:22, Werner Koch wrote:
> Hope that helps the Sierras
It does :-) Thanks!
Ludwig
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEE4WAgb7FA4aaVxJnYOtv6bQCh5v4FAliPiF8ACgkQOtv6bQCh
5v5S4Q//T8JcBKcdfTQ/9mJwPrF5aIBNJgHlL57qHadvAAUGsd8scw6
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Awesome! Works perfectly now. Tested on macOS (Sierra) Safari and
current iOS Safari.
Congrats on your A+ at SSLlabs
https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=gnupg.org&s=217.69.76.60
I would suggest you also look at doing HSTS browser preloa
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 11:56, w...@gnupg.org said:
> I am working on that. But please given me a few days. I want to align
Time warp: All servers updated. Sslabs rating is now A+ (respective A
for those without HSTS). The used pound version is can be found at
git.gnupg.org.
Hope that helps the
On 30/01/17 17:22, Werner Koch wrote:
> Time warp: All servers updated.
I can confirm it works on the latest iOS.
Andrew.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/m
> It just occured to me that it seems you're conflating bits and bytes.
> Doesn't a 64-bit-block cipher operate on 2**3 rather than 2**6 bytes?
*coughs* Yes. My bad.
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/list
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 07:54, gl...@rempe.us said:
> Is there a plan to take action on this TLS issue the Julien and I have
> written about? I believe all Safari and iOS users are excluded from
I am working on that. But please given me a few days. I want to align
the patched version of pound, whic
First off, two questions:
Why are you using GnuPG 1.4 by the way? It's generally only recommended
for server deployments rather than end-users. For desktop use, 2.0 and
2.1 are often a better choice.
And are you sure GnuPG 1.4 is the only GnuPG on your system? 1.4 and 2.0
will happily work togeth
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Glenn Rempe wrote:
> I believe all Safari and iOS users are excluded from
> gnupg.org without action on the TLS setup.
>
I can confirm that Safari won't open https://gnupg.org/ on macOS 10.12.3.
Very frustrating indeed!
Best,
Richard
__
On 26/01/17 19:48, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> The 256GiB limitation (2**32 blocks of 2**6 bytes = 2**38 bytes; 2**30 is a
> gibibyte, 2**8 is 256, hence, 256 GiB)
It just occured to me that it seems you're conflating bits and bytes.
Doesn't a 64-bit-block cipher operate on 2**3 rather than 2**6 byt
15 matches
Mail list logo
