-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/04/12 19:39, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 05/06/12 12:37, David Benfell wrote:
>> On 06/04/12 15:46, Karol Blazewicz wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:11 PM, David Benfell
>>> wrote:
I *think* you're right. But perhaps pacman-key should give
On 05/06/12 12:37, David Benfell wrote:
> On 06/04/12 15:46, Karol Blazewicz wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:11 PM, David Benfell
>> wrote:
>>> I *think* you're right. But perhaps pacman-key should give a clue
>>> that this is what's going on.
>
>> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/28027 If yo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/04/12 15:46, Karol Blazewicz wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:11 PM, David Benfell
> wrote:
>> I *think* you're right. But perhaps pacman-key should give a clue
>> that this is what's going on.
>
> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/28027 If yo
>> 1) Do not buy locked down hardware if possible.
>
> All new hardware (x86 anyway) will have this enabled by default best
> I can tell, (1) is probably not an option.
A lot of people (and businesses) will still want to use Windows XP or
7, years after Windows 8,
so I think OEMs will make sure
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:11 PM, David Benfell
wrote:
> I *think* you're right. But perhaps pacman-key should give a clue that
> this is what's going on.
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/28027
If you have time, please file this upstream if it haven't been filed
in the mean time.
Am Mon, 4 Jun 2012 22:44:31 +0200
schrieb Alexandre Ferrando :
> Arch doesn't seems to have the same kind of user than fedora, Arch if
> I don't remember it wrong, tends to be aimed for a competent user.
> Such a competent user can disable secure boot in x86 devices. (ARM
> devices doesn't seem a
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Sudaraka Wijesinghe
wrote:
> On 06/04/12 23:48, Genes MailLists wrote:
>>
>> Just to add another fedora link:
>>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pjones/Features/SecureBoot
>>
>> Sounds like they till plan to make use of the UEFI CA $99 signing
>> service
On 06/04/2012 04:44 PM, Alexandre Ferrando wrote:
...
>
> Arch doesn't seems to have the same kind of user than fedora, Arch if
> I don't remember it wrong, tends to be aimed for a competent user.
> Such a competent user can disable secure boot in x86 devices.
...
Yep - I agree about technica
On 4 June 2012 22:27, Sudaraka Wijesinghe wrote:
> On 06/04/12 23:48, Genes MailLists wrote:
>>
>> Just to add another fedora link:
>>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pjones/Features/SecureBoot
>>
>> Sounds like they till plan to make use of the UEFI CA $99 signing
>> service from Micro
On 06/04/12 23:48, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
> Just to add another fedora link:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pjones/Features/SecureBoot
>
> Sounds like they till plan to make use of the UEFI CA $99 signing
> service from Microsoft.
>
>Do you think Arch should follow suit or re
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/04/12 13:06, Ionut Biru wrote:
>
> create entropy, start copying some files, do a backup, do cat
> /dev/sda as root :D
>
I *think* you're right. But perhaps pacman-key should give a clue that
this is what's going on. On two of the three systems
On 06/04/2012 10:36 PM, Guillermo Leira wrote:
> For the past six months, pacman's package verification features were turned
> off by default while we were figuring out the details of our public-key
> infrastructure.
>
> They have finally been enabled in pacman-4.0.3-2; when you upgrade, you will
For the past six months, pacman's package verification features were turned
off by default while we were figuring out the details of our public-key
infrastructure.
They have finally been enabled in pacman-4.0.3-2; when you upgrade, you will
be prompted to run:
pacman-key --init
pacman-k
On 06/04/2012 02:55 PM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
>>Do you think Arch should follow suit or require instead that Secure
>> Boot is disabled?
>
> No.
>
> 1) Do not buy locked down hardware if possible.
All new hardware (x86 anyway) will have this enabled by default best
I can tell, (1) is pr
Am 04.06.2012 20:18, schrieb Genes MailLists:
> Just to add another fedora link:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pjones/Features/SecureBoot
>
> Sounds like they till plan to make use of the UEFI CA $99 signing
> service from Microsoft.
>
>Do you think Arch should follow suit or req
Just to add another fedora link:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pjones/Features/SecureBoot
Sounds like they till plan to make use of the UEFI CA $99 signing
service from Microsoft.
Do you think Arch should follow suit or require instead that Secure
Boot is disabled?
gene/
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 14:18:09 +0100
Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> all sorts
That was a bad choice of words by me however.
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 00:01:08 +1000
Gaetan Bisson wrote:
> Quite the contrary: if you have one weak source, it'll make the kernel
> believe it has more entropy that it actually has, while other sources,
> seeing as you've filled your entropy pool, won't contribute to it,
> leaving you with the fake
[2012-06-04 14:18:09 +0100] Kevin Chadwick:
> Multiple sources will probably increase the
> unpredictability and strength or reduce the effectiveness of
> predictability flaws
Quite the contrary: if you have one weak source, it'll make the kernel
believe it has more entropy that it actually has, w
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 09:47:57 +0200
Tobias Powalowski wrote:
> Ok as discussed on IRC, haveged seems the better choice because
> rng-tools need a real hw generator to work correct.
Why not both. Multiple sources will probably increase the
unpredictability and strength or reduce the effectiveness o
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 10:57:11 +0100
"P .NIKOLIC" wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:42:30 +0800
> Oon-Ee Ng wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:34 PM, P .NIKOLIC
> > wrote:
> > > Since you seem to be in snotty mode that i neither asked for nor
> > > required. if the mirrors were up to date the
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 13:08:31 +0100
Kevin Chadwick wrote:
>
>
> > X is not a critical package and you
> > shouldn't mess with udev just because X fails to launch.
>
> Is that right. Many may see X as far more critical. The drivers are in
> the kernel after all.
What drivers? All I was saying is
> X is not a critical package and you
> shouldn't mess with udev just because X fails to launch.
Is that right. Many may see X as far more critical. The drivers are in
the kernel after all.
I presume you mean udev problems could possibly affect bootup. If it
can, maybe that's a design error? Of
On Jun 4, 2012 11:57 AM, "P .NIKOLIC" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:42:30 +0800
> Oon-Ee Ng wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:34 PM, P .NIKOLIC
> > wrote:
> > > Since you seem to be in snotty mode that i neither asked for nor
> > > required. if the mirrors were up to date then this so
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:42:30 +0800
Oon-Ee Ng wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:34 PM, P .NIKOLIC
> wrote:
> > Since you seem to be in snotty mode that i neither asked for nor
> > required. if the mirrors were up to date then this sort of thing
> > would not happen , So Needs must , I update
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:34 PM, P .NIKOLIC wrote:
> Since you seem to be in snotty mode that i neither asked for nor
> required. if the mirrors were up to date then this sort of thing
> would not happen , So Needs must , I update this machine everyday for
> several days i have been told noth
26 matches
Mail list logo
