| 1 |
On 04/09/14 12:01, Luis Ressel wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 18:39:41 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Jo <saos@××××××.net> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> I'm a bit concerned about the signing keys of the portage tree |
| 6 |
>> releases, I know that gpg is not the same as openssl but keeping in |
| 7 |
>> mind that SSH, VPN, HTTPS keys might be compromised for two years, |
| 8 |
>> don't you think it's a healthy measure to generate a new pair of keys? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> SSL certifcates and credentials transmitted via SSL on affected servers |
| 11 |
> should be renewed, but other than that, there's not that much to worry |
| 12 |
> about as some people think. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
It's worth a trip to http://blog.erratasec.com/2014/04/why-heartbleed-doesnt-leak-private-key.html |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
It's not impossible that ssl keys could be compromised, but in most cases it shouldn't happen. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Chris |
Archives