> From: Allan Irving [mailto:[email protected]] > > Yes, the fact the latest release was signed with their GPG key is worrying.
Umm - Code signing SSL cert. Not gpg. Yep. Wasn't thinking straight when I sent this! *This message, and any attachments to it, may contain information that is privileged, confidential, copyrighted and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, copying, or communication of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete the message and any attachments. * On 29 May 2014 13:55, Edward Ned Harvey (lopser) <[email protected]>wrote: > > From: Allan Irving [mailto:[email protected]] > > > > Yes, the fact the latest release was signed with their GPG key is > worrying. > > Umm - Code signing SSL cert. Not gpg. > > > > The fact they suggest using MS Bitlocker > > makes it appear much like a prank but then again, who knows? > > I can say that before this, they had an FAQ stating their absolute > position against ever using the TPM. So the idea that this is an official > endorsement of bitlocker seems extremely dubious. >
_______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
