On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 2:35 PM Stephen Smoogen wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 at 08:24, Ian McInerney via devel <
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 12:39 PM Stephen Smoogen
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 at 20:19, Ian McInerney via devel <
Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> Basically the problem is that several checksums and types of keys are
> considered highly insecure and will cause problems for large numbers of
> users who have systems which need to meet general security rules in
> various industries. These include the SHA1 and DSA encrypt
On Monday, April 10, 2023 4:01:45 PM EDT Daniel Alley wrote:
> >and in 1-2 years, SHA256
>
> I've not seen any speculation much less evidence about sha256 being
> insecure. Is this a post-quantum-crypto thing?
Yes. There are a set of requirements called CNSA 1.0 that is being driven
into all th
>and in 1-2 years, SHA256
I've not seen any speculation much less evidence about sha256 being insecure.
Is this a post-quantum-crypto thing?
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedor
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 at 08:24, Ian McInerney via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 12:39 PM Stephen Smoogen
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 at 20:19, Ian McInerney via devel <
>> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2
Once upon a time, Stephen Smoogen said:
> The push is
> going to come in several 'waves' with SHA1 and DSA marked as bad now and in
> 1-2 years, SHA256 and RSA keys below 4096.
I know RSA under 4096 is on the way out (despite the VAST majority of
SSL certs using RSA 2048 keys), but I'm not aware
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 12:39 PM Stephen Smoogen
wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 at 20:19, Ian McInerney via devel <
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 12:16 AM Samuel Sieb wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/9/23 16:05, Ian McInerney via devel wrote:
>>> > I decided to pu
On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 at 20:19, Ian McInerney via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 12:16 AM Samuel Sieb wrote:
>
>> On 4/9/23 16:05, Ian McInerney via devel wrote:
>> > I decided to put F38 onto my new machine from the start (so a clean
>> > install), and n
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 12:16 AM Samuel Sieb
>
> So we have pushed a change in Fedora where there is no nice way for a user
> to workaround it except by complaining to a company that probably doesn't
> care what normal users (e.g. non-paying customers) care about?
You can set LEGACY if you wa
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 12:16 AM Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 4/9/23 16:05, Ian McInerney via devel wrote:
> > I decided to put F38 onto my new machine from the start (so a clean
> > install), and now it seems to have some errors with DNF/RPM that I
> > haven't seen before on F37 when I tried the same
On 4/9/23 16:05, Ian McInerney via devel wrote:
I decided to put F38 onto my new machine from the start (so a clean
install), and now it seems to have some errors with DNF/RPM that I
haven't seen before on F37 when I tried the same thing.
Specifically, I am trying to install packages from a 3r
I decided to put F38 onto my new machine from the start (so a clean
install), and now it seems to have some errors with DNF/RPM that I haven't
seen before on F37 when I tried the same thing.
Specifically, I am trying to install packages from a 3rd-party repository
(the Intel oneAPI repo), and it i
12 matches
Mail list logo
