304200+ entries in 0.182s
mod6: thanks a lot for looking
through
that.
mod6: anyway, yeah, i'll find sometime in
the next week maybe
to
try
this one out personally and rebase if required.
phf: So patches might be
there, but not in press, or in a wrong patchset, or...
mod6: no worries, just wanted
to make sure you're aware.
mod6: ah. you're missing a number of
the later patches, but maybe
that's because it's "shiva" ?
mod6: how does one load
the vpatch in
there in
the first place? just submit
to phf?
mod6: the nice part is
that i can just click and see
the vpatch
too
deedbot: shinohai updated rating of phf from 1
to 2 << btcbase.org
mircea_popescu: we were kinda in
the middle of
things with
that when interrupted.
mod6: i had
the same reaction mp
mircea_popescu: such problems can only be solved by
the problematizer and for himself.
mircea_popescu: "this doesn't solve
the problem of
the sun looking at me funny" "this is not a problem" "am i
thick or what ?!" "no, you're just
the sort of fellow
that's decided afore
the fact
that
the sun can look at you funny and
this matters."
mircea_popescu: if anyone wants
to get
the archive, base64 and deed it...
trinque: ah life at
the end of
the world
mircea_popescu: trinque it hasta be clicked, because otherwise you realise, botted into
the ground.
trinque: ah
that didn't work; I guess
that links
to
the "do you want
to archive" page
ascii_butugychag: 'ASN1 Strings
that are over 1024 bytes can cause an overread in applications
mircea_popescu kinda sees
this future, derpy eggs on wheels going around smouldering ruins
that used
to be us
towns, "STOP! Or I'll call you a bad name!"
mircea_popescu: because, much like in
the case of
the miners getting caugvht with pants down,
there is
THIS interval right here.
mircea_popescu: ascii_butugychag seeing how sks itself reports
them from 2002
to whatever, 2012, i dunno. lol.
mircea_popescu: so before it was "error handling request" ;
then it was cycling indefinitely in "queue". now it's "network error".
meuh: ascii_butugychag:
thanks
meuh: OK, I need
to investigate more (going
to open again
that OpenPGP RFCs) and don't waste your
time. I originally
tought
there was a bug in
the interface
that was incorrectly reporting my keys as dupes because I've made a single armored export of
the public key and feeds
this as a single blob
to
the submission page
ascii_butugychag: there is no way
to watch for mischief where modulus is lifted WHOLESALE, without also listing a boatload of
this rubbish, unfortunately.
ascii_butugychag: then someone else
takes your modulus, and welds own username string
to it
ascii_butugychag: say you, like a n00b might, sign
the message 'yes, meet me at midnight on
the crossroad'
meuh: coz'
they have
the same modulus ?
meuh: ascii_butugychag, mircea_popescu: you make me feel rather uncomfortable, it puzzle me how common modulus can appears in
those keys:
mircea_popescu: ascii_butugychag
the particular link noob dropped IS ALREADY IN
THE LOG.
meuh: ascii_butugychag, mircea_popescu: you make me feel rather uncomfortable, it puzzle me how common modulus can appears in
those keys:
ascii_butugychag: negative zero integers) was reported
to OpenSSL by Huzaifa Sidhpurwala
ascii_butugychag: mircea_popescu:
the fella who unplugged Dulap-1 every weekened was also rando ru guy.
ascii_butugychag: meuh, mircea_popescu :
this happens IF AND ONLY IF
the modulus recurrs in its entirety inside another key.
mircea_popescu: ascii_butugychag it's some anon russian guy. if you
think rando usg endowment is a better shot...
meuh: mircea_popescu:
think i got it,
the site reports "Modulus Seen Elsewhere! Please make sure
these are yours:" for signatures made on other keys, and I have
to check I've made
those signatures with one of my key