On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 9:35 AM André Colomb wrote:
>
> On 14/01/2021 00.06, Stefan Claas wrote:
> > Maybe, I don't know, readers here on the ML are asking themselves now why
> > do we
> > have two methods, e.g. what is their purpose and what informations can
> > one gain from
> > an IMHO very ni
On 14/01/2021 00.06, Stefan Claas wrote:
> Maybe, I don't know, readers here on the ML are asking themselves now why do
> we
> have two methods, e.g. what is their purpose and what informations can
> one gain from
> an IMHO very nice WKD checker, Wiktor has created.
Quoting from your own mail:
"A
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 11:45 PM André Colomb wrote:
>
> Am 13. Januar 2021 21:44:07 MEZ schrieb Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users
> :
> >Hi Juergen,
> >
> >looks like you are a bit upset, like probably others as well.
>
> I hope others don't mind me speaking in their names. Stefan, we are upset by
>
Am 13. Januar 2021 21:44:07 MEZ schrieb Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users
:
>Hi Juergen,
>
>looks like you are a bit upset, like probably others as well.
I hope others don't mind me speaking in their names. Stefan, we are upset by
you making false accusations about which software does something right
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 10:00 PM Erich Eckner via Gnupg-users
wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2021, Juergen Bruckner via Gnupg-users wrote:
>
> > Hello Stefan!
>
> Hi all,
>
> >
> >
> > [...]
> >> sequoia did the right step and I hope for people rely
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021, Juergen Bruckner via Gnupg-users wrote:
Hello Stefan!
Hi all,
[...]
sequoia did the right step and I hope for people relying on GnuPG that
it is possible for them in the future too.
So did Sequoia do that?
You conside
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 9:24 PM Juergen Bruckner via Gnupg-users
wrote:
>
> Hello Stefan!
>
>
> [...]
> > sequoia did the right step and I hope for people relying on GnuPG that
> > it is possible for them in the future too.
>
> So did Sequoia do that?
> You consider not to follow policies "the rig
Hello Stefan!
[...]
sequoia did the right step and I hope for people relying on GnuPG that
it is possible for them in the future too.
So did Sequoia do that?
You consider not to follow policies "the right step"?
Sorry, but you dont have a clue about security!
The only right way is to follow
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 7:26 PM André Colomb wrote:
>
> On 13/01/2021 17.56, Stefan Claas wrote:
> >> What are droplets? For which domain did you generate a wildcard
> >> certificate? What are the DNS settings on that domain? I could take a
> >> look at what responses are returned from the real
On 13/01/2021 17.56, Stefan Claas wrote:
>> What are droplets? For which domain did you generate a wildcard
>> certificate? What are the DNS settings on that domain? I could take a
>> look at what responses are returned from the real domain, but need some
>> information at least which OpenPGP us
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 4:36 PM André Colomb wrote:
>
> Hi Stefan,
>
> On 13/01/2021 17.07, Stefan Claas wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 10:22 AM André Colomb wrote:
> >
> >> So the core problem, as with Stefan's case, is the lack of control over
> >> the domain's DNS settings. Which the WKD
Hi Stefan,
On 13/01/2021 17.07, Stefan Claas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 10:22 AM André Colomb wrote:
>
>> So the core problem, as with Stefan's case, is the lack of control over
>> the domain's DNS settings. Which the WKD mechanism relies upon to
>> delegate trust to the domain operators.
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 10:22 AM André Colomb wrote:
> So the core problem, as with Stefan's case, is the lack of control over
> the domain's DNS settings. Which the WKD mechanism relies upon to
> delegate trust to the domain operators.
Hi Andre, I wouldn't formulate it this way. I already ment
Hi Neal,
thanks for chiming in with details about your implementation. It's now
clear that the wrong certificate in fact triggers an alarm, which is
good. Only the fall-back behavior differs from GnuPG. Since Stefan set
up the direct method as well, that leads to his setup actually working
with
Hi Andre,
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 20:13:42 +0100,
André Colomb wrote:
> It has also been pointed out repeatedly in this thread that Sequoia
> apparently does not properly check the TLS certificate, which you have
> proven with your example setup. That could be called "modern" or
> "insecure". It has
15 matches
Mail list logo
