On Aug 9, 2006, at 8:44 PM, Travis H. wrote:
Hey,
I was mulling over some old emails about randomly-generated numbers
and realized that if I had an imperfectly random source (something
less than 100% unpredictable), that compressing the output would
compress it to the point where it was
I was mulling over some old emails about randomly-generated
numbers and realized that if I had an imperfectly random
source (something less than 100% unpredictable), that
compressing the output would compress it to the point where
it was nearly so. Would there be any reason to choose one
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Travis H. wrote:
Hey,
I was mulling over some old emails about randomly-generated numbers
and realized that if I had an imperfectly random source (something
less than 100% unpredictable), that compressing the output would
compress it to the point where it was nearly so.
It is with some irony I note that this message from
Peter Saint-Andre failed a signature check - startcom
isn't among the trusted roots in my copy of Outlook.
Peter Trei
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre
Sent: Wednesday,
I recently inspected ssl packets from the following apps:
firefox 1.5.0.6
safari 2.0.4 (419.3)
curl 7.15.4 with OpenSSL/0.9.7i
I found that they list the following cipher suites during the client
hello handshake protocol:
(snippets from ethereal -V output...)
safari (22):
Cipher Suite:
