| 1 |
Hi Chris & List, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
f.y.i.: the post you linked got retracted by the author because as he |
| 4 |
states missread the code interpreted it in a wrong way. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Best regards, |
| 7 |
Matthias Niethammer |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
2014-04-09 21:21 GMT+02:00 Chris Frederick <cdf123@××××××.net>: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> On 04/09/14 12:01, Luis Ressel wrote: |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
>> On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 18:39:41 +0200 |
| 16 |
>> Jo <saos@××××××.net> wrote: |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> I'm a bit concerned about the signing keys of the portage tree |
| 19 |
>>> releases, I know that gpg is not the same as openssl but keeping in |
| 20 |
>>> mind that SSH, VPN, HTTPS keys might be compromised for two years, |
| 21 |
>>> don't you think it's a healthy measure to generate a new pair of keys? |
| 22 |
>>> |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> SSL certifcates and credentials transmitted via SSL on affected servers |
| 25 |
>> should be renewed, but other than that, there's not that much to worry |
| 26 |
>> about as some people think. |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> It's worth a trip to http://blog.erratasec.com/ |
| 30 |
> 2014/04/why-heartbleed-doesnt-leak-private-key.html |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> It's not impossible that ssl keys could be compromised, but in most cases |
| 33 |
> it shouldn't happen. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Chris |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> |
Archives