> 1) Not GPL or LPGL, please. I'm a fan of the GPL for most things, but
> for embedded software, especially in the security domain, it's a
> killer. I'm supposed to allow users to modify the software that runs
> on their secure token? And on a small platform where there won't be
> such thing
- Original Message -
From: "Perry E.Metzger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Some notes have been floating around claiming that there are bugs in
> GPG's use of El Gamal keys. For example, see:
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=E1AOvTM-0001nY-00%40alberti.g10code.de&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
>
>
- Original Message -
From: "Perry E.Metzger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 7:24 AM
Subject: Problems with GPG El Gamal signing keys?
>
> Some notes have been floating around claiming that there are bugs in
> GPG's use of El Gamal keys. For
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:24:12 -0500, Perry E Metzger said:
> Some notes have been floating around claiming that there are bugs in
> GPG's use of El Gamal keys. For example, see:
Yes, that is true. The message was intended for the known owners of
such keys to give them extra time to revoke the key
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 02:45:47PM +1100, Greg Rose wrote:
> At 12:27 PM 11/27/2003, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> >RC4 is extremely weak for some applications. A block cipher is greatly
> >preferable.
>
> I'm afraid that I can't agree with this howling logical error. RC4 is
> showing its age, bu
At 12:27 PM 11/27/2003, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
RC4 is extremely weak for some applications. A block cipher is greatly
preferable.
I'm afraid that I can't agree with this howling logical error. RC4 is
showing its age, but there are other stream ciphers that are acceptable,
and there are block
