David Campbell writes:
> To whom it may concern,
>
> dpkg currently uses MD5 to verify packages, but MD5 is considered
> insecure, why not switch to SHA256 (and also update lintian)?
>
> Also, to make verifying packages more useful, why not get a checksum
> from a more trusted source, like a main
I would suggest to use gnutls_set_default_priority() instead of
hard-coding a priority string into applications. Your hard coded
priority string will be just as obsolete as the hard coded values you
are replacing in a couple of years.
/Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Marsh Ray writes:
> On 10/21/2010 06:40 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>
>> The new API to query whether the extension is negotiated or not is also
>> needed, but that shouldn't cause any problems as far as I can see. A
>> binary using the new API wouldn&#x
Florian Weimer writes:
> * Simon Josefsson:
>
>> FWIW, the latest stable GnuTLS version with RFC 5746 support is not
>> even in testing, so it won't be part of even the next stable.
>
> What would be required to get a backport of RFC 5746 support into the
> curren
Yves-Alexis Perez writes:
> On mar., 2010-09-28 at 17:58 -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
>> On 09/28/2010 03:04 PM, Marsh Ray wrote:
>> > On 09/24/2010 02:45 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> > But that's a choice made by Debian. Call it release policy, procedure,
>
Marsh Ray writes:
> As a long-term Debian user myself, I appeal to Debian's sense of
> enlightened self-interest and urge that RFC 5746 support be backported
> to stable.
FWIW, the latest stable GnuTLS version with RFC 5746 support is not even
in testing, so it won't be part of even the next sta
Sam Morris writes:
> Maybe in a few years, NSS will have disabled the use of MD5 and the
> ancient MD2 algorithm. I wonder how many other insecure algorithms are
> still lurking in NSS, OpenSSL, GNU TLS, Java, etc...
In GnuTLS, we decided in 2005 that certificate signatures with MD5
should be
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 02:30:54PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> Bernd S. Brentrup wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 04:44:15PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 09:17:13PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> > > >Yes, thi
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 02:30:54PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> Bernd S. Brentrup wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 04:44:15PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 09:17:13PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> > > >Yes, thi
Jeff Wiegley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm 100% against sasl in general just for the simple fact that the
> developers have chosen to store passwords and user credentials in
> PLAINTEXT in a file on the filesystem. (add to that the need to
> maintain and synchronize two different databases or
Jeff Wiegley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm 100% against sasl in general just for the simple fact that the
> developers have chosen to store passwords and user credentials in
> PLAINTEXT in a file on the filesystem. (add to that the need to
> maintain and synchronize two different databases or
11 matches
Mail list logo
