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