From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16893 invoked by uid 1002); 17 Sep 2003 12:01:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 509 invoked from network); 17 Sep 2003 12:01:11 -0000 From: Karsten Schulz To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 14:01:08 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.2 References: <200309162132.01170.vapier@gentoo.org> <200309162210.04858.klasikahl@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200309162210.04858.klasikahl@gentoo.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200309171401.08779.kaschu@t800.ping.de> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] lsh (and liboop) on Gentoo X-Archives-Salt: 9f07d792-01c2-4023-9fae-b51054408511 X-Archives-Hash: c16d5246b283aae23003ee0e9b5ca11b Am Mittwoch, 17. September 2003 07:09 schrieb Zack Gilburd: > AFAIK, lsh is not secure, whatsoever. why? Do you have some information about exploits or exploitable bugs? As far as I know, there are no serious problems known at the moment. The only disadvantage with lsh is, that there are not so much people who use it. But that will change, when Gentoo distribute lsh ;-) Karsten -- "Bequemlichkeit ist irrelevant!" Seven of Nine, Raumschiff Voyager -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list