On 2015-09-06 18:02, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> Is there any reason to provide 64-bits binaries, BTW? It's an unbiased
> question, I simply don't know. Does it provide any benefits?
Yes, when we running 64 bit Windows, use 64 bit binary is naturally requirement.
WoW64 is optional component for Window
Robert,
Their implementation adheres to Kerchhoff's Principal as "SCI’s secret
sauce is a process for taking existing encryption techniques (they
only use vetted, established code libraries)" quoted directly in his
post and the comment from "Bob "Buzz" Akerz" [to this post] has
concurred this fact
Brian Krebs has a great case study of a shady snake-oil seller. Worth
reading.
Also, the Robert Hansen mentioned in it is not me. :)
http://krebsonsecurity.com/2015/08/how-not-to-start-an-encryption-company/
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@g
> Is there any reason to provide 64-bits binaries, BTW? It's an unbiased
> question, I simply don't know. Does it provide any benefits?
Potentially. It allows the compiler to use x64 features such as W^X,
which relies on there being an NX bit in the page table entry. This
wasn't part of the x86
On 06-09-2015 12:02, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> Is there any reason to provide 64-bits binaries, BTW? It's an unbiased
> question, I simply don't know. Does it provide any benefits?
Perhaps they accept larger files or can use more memory? I do remember
once compiling the pgp 2.6.3ia sources with Visu
On 06/09/15 10:11, Dongsheng Song wrote:
> On 2015-09-05 17:40, Werner Koch wrote:
>> - The random number generator may not produce random output.
>
> Why not trust Windows CryptoAPI (CryptGenRandom) like libressl ?
May I suggest that you take down your compiled 64-bits versions and
issue a warn
On 2015-09-05 17:40, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 04:23, dongsheng.s...@gmail.com said:
>
>> It's really works, you can check my building results:
> No, it can't work:
>
> - The random number generator may not produce random output.
Why not trust Windows CryptoAPI (CryptGenRandom) lik
