search for: 56a

Displaying 10 results from an estimated 10 matches for "56a".

Did you mean: 56
2015 May 27
4
[Bug 2302] with DH-GEX, ssh (and sshd) should not fall back to unconfigured DH groups or at least document this behaviour and use a stronger group
...niel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > On Tue 2015-05-26 15:39:49 -0400, Mark D. Baushke wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > > > The generator value of 5 does not lead to a q-ordered subgroup which > > is needed to pass tests in > > > > http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-56A/SP800-56A_Revision1_Mar08-2007.pdf > > I pulled revision 2 of this document from here: > > https://dx.doi.org/10.6028/nist.sp.800-56ar2 > > The "FFC Domain Parameter Generation" section does say: > > g is a generator of the cyclic subgroup of GF(p)* of orde...
2015 May 26
1
[Bug 2302] with DH-GEX, ssh (and sshd) should not fall back to unconfigured DH groups or at least document this behaviour and use a stronger group
https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2302 --- Comment #4 from Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> --- Comment on attachment 2630 --> https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/attachment.cgi?id=2630 Make the DH-GEX fallback group 4k bit. Where did this group come from? IMO it would be best to use one of the standard groups if we're picking another fixed one - logjam attacks aren't
2015 Jun 12
2
[Bug 2302] with DH-GEX, ssh (and sshd) should not fall back to unconfigured DH groups or at least document this behaviour and use a stronger group
...ermission to post his response. > > In this message below, the 'vendor' was Darren Tucker's generated prime > that used a generator value of 5. > > -- Mark > > From: "Roginsky, Allen" <allen.roginsky at nist.gov> > Subject: RE: Question on SP 800-56A rev2 > > The reason the y^q=1 (mod p) tests exists is to verify that y is in the > required subgroup. I think this answer "begs the question" -- yes, the mathematical test verifies that y generates a subgroup of size q. But the question we were discussing is why does the subgro...
2013 Apr 06
5
arrange data
...A NA NA NA ... $ 50A: num NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ... $ 50B: num NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ... $ 52A: num NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ... $ 52B: num NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ... $ 55A: num NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ... $ 55B: num NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ... $ 56A: num NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ... $ 56B: num NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ... $ 59A: num NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ... $ 59B: num NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ... $ 40A: num NA NA NA NA 2.93 3.38 3.19 3.62 2.55 1.69 ... $ 40B: num NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ... $ 39A: num...
2014 Oct 28
22
[Bug 2302] New: ssh (and sshd) should not fall back to deselected KEX algos
https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2302 Bug ID: 2302 Summary: ssh (and sshd) should not fall back to deselected KEX algos Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 6.7p1 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: security Priority: P5 Component: ssh
2014 Oct 28
22
[Bug 2302] New: ssh (and sshd) should not fall back to deselected KEX algos
https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2302 Bug ID: 2302 Summary: ssh (and sshd) should not fall back to deselected KEX algos Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 6.7p1 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: security Priority: P5 Component: ssh
2006 Apr 02
16
12 / 16 = 0
Hi, Just thought it was weird that Ruby doesn''t automatically cast ints to floats. Seems so un-rubyish irb(main):006:0> 12/16 => 0 irb(main):007:0> 12.to_f / 16.to_f => 0.75 Jeroen
2007 Apr 30
0
[LLVMdev] Boostrap Failure -- Expected Differences?
...outsb %ds:(%esi),(%dx) > 563: 64 65 6e outsb %fs:%gs:(%esi),(%dx) > 566: 63 65 00 arpl %sp,0x0(%ebp) > > -00000569 <__FUNCTION__.22734>: > +00000569 <__FUNCTION__.22647>: > 569: 6e outsb %ds:(%esi),(%dx) > 56a: 6f outsl %ds:(%esi),(%dx) > 56b: 6e outsb %ds:(%esi),(%dx) > @@ -11942,7 +11942,7 @@ > 596: 50 push %eax > ... > > -00000598 <__FUNCTION__.22833>: > +00000598 <__FUNCTION__.22744>: > 598: 6e...
2007 Apr 27
2
[LLVMdev] Boostrap Failure -- Expected Differences?
The saga continues. I've been tracking the interface changes and merging them with the refactoring work I'm doing. I got as far as building stage3 of llvm-gcc but the object files from stage2 and stage3 differ: warning: ./cc1-checksum.o differs warning: ./cc1plus-checksum.o differs (Are the above two ok?) The list below is clearly bad. I think it's every object file in the
2008 Jun 30
4
Rebuild of kernel 2.6.9-67.0.20.EL failure
Hello list. I'm trying to rebuild the 2.6.9.67.0.20.EL kernel, but it fails even without modifications. How did I try it? Created a (non-root) build environment (not a mock ) Installed the kernel.scr.rpm and did a rpmbuild -ba --target=`uname -m` kernel-2.6.spec 2> prep-err.log | tee prep-out.log The build failed at the end: Processing files: kernel-xenU-devel-2.6.9-67.0.20.EL Checking