On 10/2/2011 10:53 PM, Jerome Baum wrote:
> What I don't get is, why didn't he just make his own food?
He did, until he ran out of food. Then he was literally too paranoid to
leave the house to buy groceries.
Clinical paranoia is a brutal mental illness.
On 2011-10-02 00:58, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> On 10/01/2011 02:46 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> That's not a healthy dose of paranoia. A healthy dose of paranoia in
> that case would be washing your hands before you eat, or not eating
> something off the floor. Starving yourself, because you think pe
On 10/1/2011 9:01 AM, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Digital_Signature_Algorithm#Sensitivity
This is an argument against having a *bad* DSA implementation, in the
exact same way you shouldn't use a bad RSA implementation, either. RSA
has just as many warning
On 01/10/11 18:51, brian m. carlson wrote:
> Point being, both DSA and RSA have their good and bad points, and if
> you're fairly confident that you have a good PRNG, such as /dev/urandom,
> then there's not really much concern about k. After all, you also need
> a good PRNG for CFB IVs as well, a
On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 07:01:14AM -0600, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> Having a sufficient amount of paranoia, would keep you from using DSA, I
> would think.
I have an RSA key with RSA subkeys, but now that larger DSA keys are
generally available, I'd be okay with revolving DSA signing subkeys. As
you
On 9/30/2011 8:57 PM, Marcio B. Jr. wrote:
> http://lwn.net/Articles/461236/
Before people panic, there are no known weaknesses in DSA. The SHA-1
hash algorithm has some severe problems, but there's nothing in DSA that
requires the use of SHA-1: you can replace it with any 160-bit hash.
Let's no
http://lwn.net/Articles/461236/
Marcio Barbado, Jr.
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
