Re: Packages to remove from frozen

2000-03-09 Thread Paul Slootman
On Thu 09 Mar 2000, Jacob Kuntz wrote: > isn't the problem here that the server is misrepresenting itself? a one bit > difference may not make a less secure key, but it could quite possibly be an > indication of some deception. i worry that altering the client to ignore > this type of error will o

Re: Packages to remove from frozen

2000-03-09 Thread Jacob Kuntz
isn't the problem here that the server is misrepresenting itself? a one bit difference may not make a less secure key, but it could quite possibly be an indication of some deception. i worry that altering the client to ignore this type of error will only open us up to attack, be it man-in-the-middl

Re: Packages to remove from frozen

2000-03-08 Thread Ben Armstrong
On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > Isn't it that to decrypt 1024 key takes double the amount of > CPU time than decrypting 1023 key, as long as there is no other > method than brute-force method of trying every combination. > > IMO It is a serious security issue, when the system is half a

Re: Packages to remove from frozen

2000-03-08 Thread Junichi Uekawa
In Wed, 8 Mar 2000 11:10:11 -0500, de profundis Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritas scribat mstone> Are you really convinced that the security of a 1023 bit key is so much mstone> worse than the security of a 1024 bit key that any amount of effort mstone> necessary to transition to a ne

Re: Packages to remove from frozen

2000-03-08 Thread Michael Stone
On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 09:18:06AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Use the Source, Luke. Quit whining and start coding. Why? On hosts where this is an issue, f-secure's ssh does the job just fine. (Not to mention that I don't live in a free country and can't work on ssh...) -- Mike Stone pgp

Re: Packages to remove from frozen

2000-03-08 Thread Michael Stone
On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 08:56:34AM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote: > Eh, well, it is correct[1] behavior to toss out an error message in this > case since it's notifying you of a *security* problem. In fact, it's > telling you that the server key is half as secure as the server claims > it is. But

Re: Packages to remove from frozen

2000-03-08 Thread Nathan E Norman
On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 11:26:12PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 03:13:36PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: > > Michael Stone wrote: > > > Not very backward-compatible, is it? In some environments it's desirable > > > to have the software behave the same on every platform; even if i

Re: Packages to remove from frozen

2000-03-08 Thread Branden Robinson
On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 11:26:12PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote: > How is it right to spit out an error message on every connection that > adds nothing to most people's use of the product? Especially when there > exists a verbose mode for people who want lots of gory details about the > efficacy of t