Those numbers are not allocated they are just an artifact of bad design
from the 199x's
Olafur
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 6:00 AM, A. Schulze wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm searching for a reference (IANA?) that define the DNSSEC hash
> algorithm hmac-sha256
> has assigned the number 159
> ( see http://
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 7:06 PM Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:32:02PM +, Warren Kumari wrote:
> > P.S / full-disclosure: I happen to use RPZ, and have for a number of
> years
> > -- I run a number of (personal) mailing lists on my own mailserver, and
> use
> > a number
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:32:02PM +, Warren Kumari wrote:
> P.S / full-disclosure: I happen to use RPZ, and have for a number of years
> -- I run a number of (personal) mailing lists on my own mailserver, and use
> a number of RPZ feeds (e.g Spamhaus' DBL) for spam mitigation.
Are you thinkin
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 5:00 PM Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Dec 31, 2016, at 3:27 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
> wrote:
>
> why is there a need to make it easier for outside forces
> to pressure providers to use such mechanisms to exert control over
> their users rather than protect them from harm?
>
>
> There
On Dec 31, 2016, at 3:27 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> why is there a need to make it easier for outside forces
> to pressure providers to use such mechanisms to exert control over
> their users rather than protect them from harm?
There is no _way_ to make it easier for said outside forces to pres
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 05:45:59AM -, John Levine wrote:
> >I'm seeing how it really helps governments cheaply create and enforce
> >the creation of national internets -- especially with the walled garden
> >features. Are those the good guys to you, or are there other benefits?
>
> Please se
If you generate keys using the dnssec-keygen that comes with BIND, then
ISC's arbitrary numbers are exposed as follows:
HMAC-MD5157a.k.a. HMAC-MD5.SIG-ALG.REG.INT
HMAC-SHA1 161
HMAC-SHA224 162
HMAC-SHA256 163
HMAC-SHA384 164
