On Wed 2016-08-31 15:44:20 -0400, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
> Is the package still forcing the backup and re-import on upgrade? I
> know that is what took one of my servers out when I upgraded as they
> don't have the space to do so. I'd rather just blow away the DB and
> let my SaltStack deployment
Sounds like a good idea from reading over the BTS report. If someone
setting up a new server were to grab that it would no doubt cause issues.
Is the package still forcing the backup and re-import on upgrade? I
know that is what took one of my servers out when I upgraded as they
don't have
Hi William--
On Wed 2016-08-31 13:26:24 -0400, William Hay wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 03:45:12PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> I've prepared a jessie-backports package that i'm running on
>> zimmermann.mayfirst.org as well. As soon as 1.1.6-1 makes it into
>> testing, i'll push it in
On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 03:45:12PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> I've prepared a jessie-backports package that i'm running on
> zimmermann.mayfirst.org as well. As soon as 1.1.6-1 makes it into
> testing, i'll push it into jessie-backports.
Hi,
I'm sure you're busy but the above makes it s
On 31/08/16 16:18, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Adding is way cheaper
> for a computer than multiplying, so your hardware will be able to
> perform many, many more cryptographic operations with ECC than with
> RSA.
That's a good argument for using EECDH in TLS, which is fair enough -
with ephemeral keys i
Gunnar Wolf writes:
> Andrew Gallagher dijo [Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:14:01AM +0100]:
>> I'm sceptical of the utility of ECC keys personally. They were first
>> proposed as a way of reducing work and storage space (because the
>> space of usable ECC keys is more compact than the sparsely
>> distrib
Andrew Gallagher dijo [Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:14:01AM +0100]:
> I'm sceptical of the utility of ECC keys personally. They were first
> proposed as a way of reducing work and storage space (because the
> space of usable ECC keys is more compact than the sparsely
> distributed RSA primes). But they'
Steven Noonan writes:
> On 31/08/16 07:07, Christoph Egger wrote:
>> Steven Noonan writes:
>>> Attempted doing a dump and rebuild of my database from that, but it didn't
>>> help
>>> with this problem. Still sees those same two keys out of sync:
>>
>> Wild guess: ECC keys and your peer doesn't
Hi!
Steven Noonan writes:
> Attempted doing a dump and rebuild of my database from that, but it didn't
> help
> with this problem. Still sees those same two keys out of sync:
Wild guess: ECC keys and your peer doesn't understand them and sends you
some data your server doesn't like
Christoph
On 31/08/16 07:07, Christoph Egger wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Steven Noonan writes:
>> Attempted doing a dump and rebuild of my database from that, but it didn't
>> help
>> with this problem. Still sees those same two keys out of sync:
>
> Wild guess: ECC keys and your peer doesn't understand them and se
Attempted doing a dump and rebuild of my database from that, but it didn't help
with this problem. Still sees those same two keys out of sync:
==> recon.log <==
2016-08-31 04:37:02 Added 1 hash-updates. Caught up to 1472643422.340101
2016-08-31 04:37:58 error in callback.: Sys_error("Connection
I'm sceptical of the utility of ECC keys personally. They were first proposed
as a way of reducing work and storage space (because the space of usable ECC
keys is more compact than the sparsely distributed RSA primes). But they've
taken so long to catch on that technology advancement has made th
GnuPG 2.1 is not available on Debian stable (jessie) at all at the
moment. And no, 3rd party repos are not the answer for this,
particularly not for sensitive crypto software.
On 31/08/16 09:50, Hillebrand van de Groep wrote:
> apt-get upgrade or the alternative on your distro helps ;)
>
> On Aug
apt-get upgrade or the alternative on your distro helps ;)
On August 31, 2016 10:29:48 AM GMT+02:00, Chris Boot wrote:
>On 31/08/16 06:12, Steven Noonan wrote:
>> Resending this message with a key that isn't revoked. Doh!
>
>Except now, because it's an ECC key, nobody can verify your mail unless
On 31/08/16 06:12, Steven Noonan wrote:
> Resending this message with a key that isn't revoked. Doh!
Except now, because it's an ECC key, nobody can verify your mail unless
they're running GPG 2.1... :-)
Cheers,
Chris
--
Chris Boot
bo...@bootc.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital s
15 matches
Mail list logo
