-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi,
since enable-ec_nistp_64_gcc_128 is
disabled by default on OpenBSD due to compiler bugs [1]
I wanted to ask how bad is it (in relay context) to ignore the usual
tor log entry:
We were built to run on a 64-bit CPU, with OpenSSL 1.0.1 or later,
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 15:55:59 -0400
l.m ter.one.lee...@hush.com wrote:
Last I heard NIST groups are rubbish. You're better off without them
for security. Am I wrong?
DHE is worse (logjam being a recent high profile example), and is
far slower. It's important to remember that TLS being broken
Hi,
Hi!
Maybe an important difference here is that GetTor is a way to circumvent
censorship (if I understand correctly), while our extension works to
provide authentication only. I think it's a good idea to rely on browser
stores not to be censored in the same way as your website. But
Dear all,
Following
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names/
and the separation of .onion in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld-01
to satisfy the IETF's desire to have lots of documents, I've now split
off .exit as well to create
Hi,
Last I heard NIST groups are rubbish. You're better off without them
for security. Am I wrong?
--leeroy
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
