[tor-dev] How bad is not having 'enable-ec_nistp_64_gcc_128' really? (OpenBSD)

2015-06-22 Thread nusenu
-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,

Re: [tor-dev] How bad is not having 'enable-ec_nistp_64_gcc_128' really? (OpenBSD)

2015-06-22 Thread Yawning Angel
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

Re: [tor-dev] How bad is not having 'enable-ec_nistp_64_gcc_128' really? (OpenBSD)

2015-06-22 Thread l.m
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