For those interested, link to the NIST document:
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-57pt1r4.pdf
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 1:50 AM Nicholas Papadonis <
nick.papadonis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I read in NIST 800-57 Part 1 Rev. 4 pg 53 that RSA keys length of 153
I read in NIST 800-57 Part 1 Rev. 4 pg 53 that RSA keys length of 15360
bits is equivalent to a 256 bit AES symmetric key. I also read in other
documentation that NIST recommends such key lengths to protect data beyond
2030. As email may be retained for many years it would seem appropriate to
p://www.foocrypt.net/
>
> © Mark A. Lane 1980 - 2016, All Rights Reserved.
> © FooCrypt 1980 - 2016, All Rights Reserved.
> © FooCrypt, A Tale of Cynical Cyclical Encryption. 1980 - 2016, All Rights
> Reserved.
> © Cryptopocalypse 1980 - 2016, All Rights Reserved.
>
>
>
> On 5 Nov 20
e my employer didn't let me use a
> GNU/Linux workstation...).
>
> However and for what it's worth:
>
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 06:48:07AM -0500, Nicholas Papadonis wrote:
> > I noticed that there are two OSX packages for GPG:
> >
> > Mac GPG Installer
Hi Folks,
Does anyone have suggestions on the most secure and reviewed combination
for bits for sending secure email on OSX?
I noticed that there are two OSX packages for GPG:
Mac GPG Installer from the gpgtools project
GnuPG for OS X Installer for GnuPG
Is any one
Does anyone have suggestions on the most secure and reviewed combination
for bits for sending secure email on OS X?
I noticed that there are two OSX packages for GPG:
Mac GPG Installer from the gpgtools project
GnuPG for OS X Installer for GnuPG
Is any one preferred, have
Security Experts,
I'm considering encrypting a tar archive and optionally a block file system
(via FUSE) using either utility. Does anyone have comments on the best
practices and tools for either?
I read that the OpenSSL AES-CBC CLI mode is prone to a malleable attack
vector and it's CLI
