From bb0b7165a398e481c8512b87afaaff097c933fe4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: distix ticketing system Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 19:20:04 +0000 Subject: imported mails --- .../Maildir/new/1499109603.M864073P31131Q1.koom | 114 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 114 insertions(+) create mode 100644 tickets/e438054ed0074cc2b9c85554d2504b38/Maildir/new/1499109603.M864073P31131Q1.koom (limited to 'tickets') diff --git a/tickets/e438054ed0074cc2b9c85554d2504b38/Maildir/new/1499109603.M864073P31131Q1.koom b/tickets/e438054ed0074cc2b9c85554d2504b38/Maildir/new/1499109603.M864073P31131Q1.koom new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e75ba64 --- /dev/null +++ b/tickets/e438054ed0074cc2b9c85554d2504b38/Maildir/new/1499109603.M864073P31131Q1.koom @@ -0,0 +1,114 @@ +Return-Path: +X-Original-To: distix@pieni.net +Delivered-To: distix@pieni.net +Received: from yaffle.pepperfish.net (yaffle.pepperfish.net [88.99.213.221]) + by pieni.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA9CB42E84 + for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 19:16:45 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from platypus.pepperfish.net (unknown [10.112.101.20]) + by yaffle.pepperfish.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E52D41C86; + Mon, 3 Jul 2017 20:16:45 +0100 (BST) +Received: from ip6-localhost.nat ([::1] helo=platypus.pepperfish.net) + by platypus.pepperfish.net with esmtp (Exim 4.80 #2 (Debian)) + id 1dS6px-0007yu-KM; Mon, 03 Jul 2017 20:16:45 +0100 +Received: from [10.112.101.21] (helo=inmail2.pepperfish.net) + by platypus.pepperfish.net with esmtps (Exim 4.80 #2 (Debian)) + id 1dS6pw-0007yh-K8 + for ; Mon, 03 Jul 2017 20:16:44 +0100 +Received: from palant.de ([88.198.212.187]) + by inmail2.pepperfish.net with esmtps + (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) + (envelope-from ) id 1dS6pu-0002Hx-Lq + for obnam-dev@obnam.org; Mon, 03 Jul 2017 20:16:44 +0100 +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=palant.de; + s=dkim201610; + h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: + MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject; + bh=z4UU+Ktqsm5fjlAUOptwQSgmee5f6+ofDGLADbelzRU=; b=AHw4xgn8dd8TeBIU4o3A+ByXbQ + wB4GhbdfchRP6oB7xYn72kmFH7H9mOjvQmlJpiJyg27cyYQGXnWJ5y7cq8YF77xovzFnGdmgGq37x + mv0iS2RrKW8Ym6fg4JsT/Rm5Xm6MQ9bxRlAr2hIMGfXm7ez6k7C5E42i0+BuEpKhoaFA=; +To: Henri Sivonen +References: <2d0a8c01-9f58-1ee7-7e20-53fe65d96718@palant.de> + +From: Wladimir Palant +Message-ID: +Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 21:16:35 +0200 +User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 + Thunderbird/52.1.1 +MIME-Version: 1.0 +In-Reply-To: +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed +Content-Language: en-US +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit +X-Pepperfish-Transaction: eb4a-b77a-e0be-350d +X-Spam-Score: -3.5 +X-Spam-Score-int: -34 +X-Spam-Bar: --- +X-Scanned-By: pepperfish.net, Mon, 03 Jul 2017 20:16:44 +0100 +X-Spam-Report: Content analysis details: (-3.5 points) + pts rule name description + ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- + -0.5 PPF_USER_AGENT User-Agent: exists + -1.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain + -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% + [score: 0.0000] + -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature + 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, + not necessarily valid + -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's + domain +X-ACL-Warn: message may be spam +X-Scan-Signature: 909e24a621a695a51ad00ecc17e68015 +Cc: obnam-dev@obnam.org +Subject: Re: [rfc] Passphrase-based encryption +X-BeenThere: obnam-dev@obnam.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Obnam development discussions +List-Unsubscribe: , + +List-Archive: +List-Post: +List-Help: +List-Subscribe: , + +Sender: obnam-dev-bounces@obnam.org +Errors-To: obnam-dev-bounces@obnam.org + +On 03.07.2017 20:29, Henri Sivonen wrote: +> If you don't need AES specifically, you can find an XSalsa20+Poly1305 +> implementation at: +> https://github.com/hsivonen/obnam/compare/salsa?expand=1 + +Interesting, thank you for sharing. This is way more advanced than my +quick and dirty plugin of course. + +> I haven't had the time to write proper unit tests, benchmarks or docs, +> which is why I haven't tried upstreaming it. + +Unfortunately, I assume that the arguments against upstreaming my +solution apply to yours just as well - so even with tests, benchmarks +and docs it won't get accepted. + +> Probably more important that letting users tweak the key size is to +> make sure that the AEAD construction is good and suitable for use with +> a randomly-generated nonce for the amount of data one would expect to +> encrypt using Obnam. I don't know if CFB fits this, but +> XSalsa20+Poly1305 or XChaCha20+Poly1305 should (the non-X variants of +> Salsa20 and ChaCha20 *don't*). + +CFB uses initialization vectors (randomly generated for each file in my +case) which I think serve a similar purpose. But I'm not really familiar +with either Salsa20 or ChaCha20 so I would be grateful if you could +expand. What kind of issues is this about? Are you implying that these +algorithms would be better performance-wise? I don't really know how +they compare to AES but at least for me the performance is clearly +limited by the uplink and not by the CPU. In other scenarios it could be +completely different of course. + +regards +Wladimir + +_______________________________________________ +obnam-dev mailing list +obnam-dev@obnam.org +http://listmaster.pepperfish.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/obnam-dev-obnam.org -- cgit v1.2.1