There is really no excuse for not using an SSL certificate. Without one it
would be trivial for an attacker to change the contents of the page via
MITM.
Recent studies have shown MASSIVE abuse of the BGP routing protocol being
used to redirect websites through a third party.
This is not a
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Drak d...@zikula.org wrote:
BGP redirection is a reality and can be exploited without much
You're managing to argue against SSL. Because it actually provides
basically protection against an attacker who can actively intercept
traffic to the server. Against that
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Drak d...@zikula.org wrote:
Let me clarify. SSL renders BGP redirection useless because the browser
holds the signatures of CA's it trusts: an attacker cannot spoof a
certificate because it needs to be signed by a trusted CA: that's the point
of SSL, it
On 8 December 2013 20:40, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
Right now I think Sirius still owns DNS for bitcoin.org which is
nonsense.
He needs to pass it on to someone who is actually still involved with the
On Sunday, December 08, 2013 8:51:07 PM Drak wrote:
Otherwise, who has admin rights to the code projects
(github/sourceforge/this mailing list)? Those people have proven they can
be trusted so far.
Can someone explain how Sirius has proven the least bit untrustworthy?
Luke
On 8 December 2013 21:01, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
On Sunday, December 08, 2013 8:51:07 PM Drak wrote:
Otherwise, who has admin rights to the code projects
(github/sourceforge/this mailing list)? Those people have proven they can
be trusted so far.
Can someone explain how Sirius
On Sun, 8 Dec 2013 13:14:44 -0800, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Drak d...@zikula.org wrote:
Simple verification relies on being able to answer the email sent to
the
person in the whois records, or standard admin/webmaster@ addresses
to prove
ownership of the
On Sunday, December 08, 2013 9:16:09 PM Saïvann Carignan wrote:
1) Who pays for it? Most obvious answer: Foundation. However there's
currently a fairly clear line between the foundation website and the
bitcoin.org http://bitcoin.org website. I personally am fine with the
bitcoin foundation
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013, at 03:11 PM, Drak wrote:
It's not just about trust, there is the robustness factor: what if he
becomes sick, unavailable, hit by a bus? Others need the ability to
pickup and run with it. The control over the domain (including ability
to renew registration, alter nameservers)
Have you considered black lotus dedicated servers?
On 12/08/2013 03:16 PM, Saïvann Carignan wrote:
Issues that would need to be resolved:
1) Who pays for it? Most obvious answer: Foundation. However there's
currently a fairly clear line between the foundation website and the
bitcoin.org
Maybe bitcointalk.org would like to donate a few BTC from the 6,000 BTC new
forum fund to sponsor hosting?
On Dec 8, 2013, at 5:51 PM, theymos they...@mm.st wrote:
I'm sure that you can find a sponsor for a dedicated server.
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
I bring this up because of the recent bitcointalk fiasco. AFAIK the domains
are registered and controlled in the same way. It's likely that the current
registrar isn't very secure.
I registered bitcointalk.org originally, then
Our testing of the macos leveldb parts for the past 6 days has had zero
complaints of new corruption from OMG and LTC users. I agree it is time to
release 0.8.6.
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Gavin Andresen gavinandre...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Warren Togami Jr.
I can provide the server hardware and colocation (space, power, and bandwidth) if dedicated 50Mbit in 55 S. Market, San Jose, CA data center is acceptable.If it needs more bandwidth than that, in a few months I hope to be getting space in LA with 1Gbit, but I can't commit to that now.On Sun, Dec
14 matches
Mail list logo
