Just noting that we are moving forward on the original ticket.
It does appear that we've drifted onto other issues, I'd like to remind
people to please file bugs/feature requests on those so we don't lose track
of them.
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> On Wed, May 25,
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:23, Jennings, Jared L CTR USAF AFMC 46
SK/CCI wrote:
>> Ah. I was thinking in the broader scope of getting us away from
>> insecure hashes elsewhere in the product. From a strictly certificate
>> POV, indeed, it should be just fine.
>
> I'm trying to configure FIPS-com
> Ah. I was thinking in the broader scope of getting us away from
> insecure hashes elsewhere in the product. From a strictly certificate
> POV, indeed, it should be just fine.
I'm trying to configure FIPS-compliant servers, and I've run into segfaults
thrown by the Ruby interpreter when Puppet
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:02, Mark Stanislav wrote:
> On May 24, 2011, at 1:50 PM, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 06:36, Mark Stanislav
>> wrote:
>>> On May 24, 2011, at 1:38 AM, Daniel Pittman wrote:
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 08:23, Nigel Kersten wrote:
> On Fri, May
On May 24, 2011, at 1:50 PM, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 06:36, Mark Stanislav
> wrote:
>> On May 24, 2011, at 1:38 AM, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 08:23, Nigel Kersten wrote:
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Mark Stanislav
wrote:
> […]
>>> L
On 24/05/11 19:50, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 06:36, Mark Stanislav
> wrote:
>> On May 24, 2011, at 1:38 AM, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 08:23, Nigel Kersten wrote:
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Mark Stanislav
wrote:
> […]
>>> Larger keys,
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 06:36, Mark Stanislav wrote:
> On May 24, 2011, at 1:38 AM, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 08:23, Nigel Kersten wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Mark Stanislav
>>> wrote:
[…]
>> Larger keys, better hashing (probably by adding them as well as m
On May 24, 2011, at 1:38 AM, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 08:23, Nigel Kersten wrote:
>> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Mark Stanislav
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> In short, I'm in agreement with you. With the CA which is defaulted to 5
>>> years (not at all surprising) there's no dou
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 08:23, Nigel Kersten wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Mark Stanislav
> wrote:
>>
>> In short, I'm in agreement with you. With the CA which is defaulted to 5
>> years (not at all surprising) there's no doubt that soon (maybe 2.7 is a
>> good time?) that 2048 key si
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Mark Stanislav wrote:
> Hi Micah,
>
> In short, I'm in agreement with you. With the CA which is defaulted to 5
> years (not at all surprising) there's no doubt that soon (maybe 2.7 is a
> good time?) that 2048 key size should be used for at least the CA key, if
> n
Hi Micah,
In short, I'm in agreement with you. With the CA which is defaulted to 5 years
(not at all surprising) there's no doubt that soon (maybe 2.7 is a good time?)
that 2048 key size should be used for at least the CA key, if not default for
client key generation as well. Secondly, yes, I d
Hi all,
I would like to start a discussion about changing the default key length
From 1024 bits to 2048, and am interested to know if this might cause
any issues for people.
puppet.conf(5) says that the keylength parameter defaults to 1024 bits
for new RSA keys.
There are many reasons why 1024
12 matches
Mail list logo
