Is there any notion of doing a sort of automated testing for things
like this that can be easily proven?
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Philipp Winter wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 04:59:13PM +0200, carlo von lynX wrote:
>> Hey out there.. I had two more attempts
>> from 'coriandolino' to
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 04:59:13PM +0200, carlo von lynX wrote:
> Hey out there.. I had two more attempts
> from 'coriandolino' to MITM my ssh traffic!
I could confirm the issue. The relay will no longer be part of the
network consensus once enough directory authorities updated their
config -- ho
Hey out there.. I had two more attempts
from 'coriandolino' to MITM my ssh traffic!
Is anybody going to exclude that node from
the network or do we have to get used that
abusive nodes are not going to suffer any sanctions?
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 01:28:50PM +, flipchan wrote:
> Could you post
Could you post more log data?
On July 15, 2017 1:33:52 PM GMT+02:00, carlo von lynX
wrote:
>Hi, I report an experience I seem to have made.
>In recent weeks I was occasionally prompted with
>a wrong SSH key for my server, like this:
>
>RSA key fingerprint is
>SHA256:DcXN8UTcDaCz7N1BoUXc9H8yUAs4g
Hi, I report an experience I seem to have made.
In recent weeks I was occasionally prompted with
a wrong SSH key for my server, like this:
RSA key fingerprint is SHA256:DcXN8UTcDaCz7N1BoUXc9H8yUAs4gxiy37Y1+BDIhUU.
Today I was fast enough to look up the stream
list, using remotor:
2602 SUCCEEDED
