The last time I read
https://www.schneier.com/
perhaps 2 or 3 years ago, he mentions that using 2 computers is
relatively save. One computer using all the anonymous abilities we have
for mailing and surfing and just a second computer for sharing data
between the Internet and a disconnected PC, us
The end ;).
There's no security if you are connected to the Internet. The
difference between using an relatively unsecure Arch Linux computer,
with a MUA pointing out what distro we use and a relatively tricky
secure way using at least 3 computers to share our data between an
anonymous Internet co
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 04:28:13PM -0500, vixsomnis wrote:
> Considering USB as a standard is vulnerable (BadUSB malware that infects
> the firmware of the USB device), you'd be safer having your "off the
> net" computer just connected via ethernet cable to your anonymous
> computer, and making sur
Ok, we could use randomly chosen live media for the control computer in
the middle instead of changing the hardware several times a day, but
it's more risky. Anyway, instead of my USB stick I guess you're
right, the manually disconnected and connected ethernet cable is the
most save way, but really
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 22:16:28 +0100
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:31:40 +0100
> Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 15:02:58 -0500
> > Sean Greenslade wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 06:55:51AM +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > > > Sean, actually you tells us tha
Considering USB as a standard is vulnerable (BadUSB malware that infects
the firmware of the USB device), you'd be safer having your "off the
net" computer just connected via ethernet cable to your anonymous
computer, and making sure the link is locked down.
--
vixsomnis
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014, at
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:31:40 +0100
> Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 15:02:58 -0500
> > Sean Greenslade wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 06:55:51AM +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > > > Sean, actually you tells us that we
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:31:40 +0100
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 15:02:58 -0500
> Sean Greenslade wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 06:55:51AM +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > > Sean, actually you tells us that we should care about security
> > > holes in Mutt/1.5.23 to attack you
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 15:02:58 -0500
Sean Greenslade wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 06:55:51AM +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > Sean, actually you tells us that we should care about security
> > holes in Mutt/1.5.23 to attack you ;) and since you're replying to
> > Arch general email, you're likely
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 06:55:51AM +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> Sean, actually you tells us that we should care about security holes in
> Mutt/1.5.23 to attack you ;) and since you're replying to Arch general
> email, you're likely using Arch Linux. This likely is a trick, you're
> running Alpin on
Op 13 nov. 2014 05:32 schreef "Sean Greenslade" :
>
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 01:53:25PM +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > If somebody should fear an attack, than it's wiser even not to
> > mention what version of Claws Mail, GTK and what architecture is used.
> > This can be done by the account setti
On Wed, 2014-11-12 at 23:22 -0500, Sean Greenslade wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 01:53:25PM +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > If somebody should fear an attack, than it's wiser even not to
> > mention what version of Claws Mail, GTK and what architecture is used.
> > This can be done by the account
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 01:53:25PM +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> If somebody should fear an attack, than it's wiser even not to
> mention what version of Claws Mail, GTK and what architecture is used.
> This can be done by the account settings.
> Configuration > Edit accounts... > Edit selected acco
On Wed, 5 Nov 2014 13:03:14 +0100
Martti Kühne wrote:
> > What is insecure when doing it?
>
> You cannot tell or know. But your way an attacker (they usually know
> more than you or I) has the advantage of knowing exactly which of the
> distros he is targeting.
If somebody should fear an attack,
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
> Hi Martti,
>
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2014 07:56:25 +0100
> Martti Kühne wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Ralf Mardorf
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > OK, so it perhaps should be the default for CHOST, but for packages
>> > such as Claws mail --build=$
Hi Martti,
On Wed, 5 Nov 2014 07:56:25 +0100
Martti Kühne wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Ralf Mardorf
> wrote:
> >
> > OK, so it perhaps should be the default for CHOST, but for packages
> > such as Claws mail --build=$(uname -m)-arch-linux-gnu should be ok,
> > while CHOST still coul
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
>
> OK, so it perhaps should be the default for CHOST, but for packages such
> as Claws mail --build=$(uname -m)-arch-linux-gnu should be ok, while
> CHOST still could be as it is.
>
Wait, you'd prefer an untrue, nongeneric and revealing value
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 19:21:24 +0100
Andreas Radke wrote:
> I remember
> some packages that strictly needed this generic CHOST variable to be
> able to compile out of the box. Any customized naming made them fail
> to pass configure.
OK, so it perhaps should be the default for CHOST, but for package
Am Tue, 4 Nov 2014 07:29:25 +0100
schrieb Ralf Mardorf :
> Hi :)
>
> why is the wanted default CHOST ARCHITECTURE-unknown-linux-gnu instead
> of ARCHITECTURE-arch-linux-gnu?
>
> $ grep CHOST /etc/makepkg.conf
> CHOST="x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu"
>
> I wasn't aware of this, until I started testing
19 matches
Mail list logo
