Oh, these arguments are rich! They never cease to crack me up. "So and so crypto cipher is weak...blah blah blah..." Show me the cluster of supercomputers than can break them in any kind of meaningful time frame and I *might* start to worry. Oh wait, I forgot about those super secret NSA ones... Please, give me a break...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 00:21 +0200, "Milan BartoE!" <merlyn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > First, it uses 128-bits > Thank You for telling, I'm much stiller now. > > > Third, if you care, use softraid. > Already reading man page, thanks :-) > > > 2009/9/16 Ted Unangst <ted.unan...@gmail.com>: > > First, it uses 128-bits, and second, the practical attacks against > > blowfish are what exactly? > > > > Third, if you care, use softraid. > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Milan BartoE!<merlyn...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> old 64-bit blowfish? > >> > >> 2009/9/16 Ted Unangst <ted.unan...@gmail.com>: > >>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Milan BartoE!<merlyn...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>>> I still hear people (mostly younger people) complain about OpenBSD > performance > >>>> > >>>> I still hear people telling that OpenBSD is secure. It's of course > >>>> true, but e.g. vnconfig uses quite weak crypto mechanism. I preffer to > >>>> say OpenBSD is bugfree. Otherwise, it's still the best OS ever. > >>> > >>> what is weak about vnconfig crypto?
