On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:58:41 +0100, Ralph wrote in message <[email protected]>:
> Hi Arnt, > > > > > ..in my cases they play Kafka games litigating me, and prevail > > > > with "Chad's Defense", because I don't have the money to hire > > > > lawyers. > > > > > > Forgive my ignorance, but what is a "Chad's Defense" ? > > > > ..you managed to miss it??? 8oD About half the list traffic on this > > list ([email protected]) this spring, and the very > > reason it is now moderated since April > > No, not this list, `tech', but the `legal' one. > > > is why I'm looking for gold standards on checksums that can make it > > thru litigation etc scrutiny all the way up to the supreme courts > > around this planet. > > Why not move from SHA-1 to SHA-2 since space is presumably not an > issue? It's likely to be considered even better if there's a chance > SHA-1 is considered insufficient. See sha512sum(1) and > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sha512#Comparison_of_SHA_functions ..because the Norwegian government _may_ have decided _otherwise_. ..if I get to decide those standards, I'm happy to shove _anything_ down their throat. ;o) To make them stick, these standards should either come from the EU, NATO, Hollywood, RIAA, MPAA, NSA or some such 3 to 4-letter agency that feeds them the usual kinda BS they swallow. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case.
