= Сообщение: 6168 из 7128 ====================================== FTSC_PUBLIC = От : James Coyle 1:129/215 25 Feb 22 01:10:59 Кому : Alexey Vissarionov 25 Feb 22 01:10:59 Тема : Re: Directly include binary data in messages FGHI : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=1:129/215+010a4619 На : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=2:5020/545+621858b7 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: ASCII ================================== Ответ: area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=31632.ftsc_pub@1:103/705+267e3ebe Ответ: area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=2:5020/545+6218d63a ============================================================================== AV> JC> Synchronet and Mystic support direct BINKP over SSL natively which AV> JC> is a good start to securing transmission. AV> AV> It's the most stupid thing that could be done. AV> AV> The SSL was good 15...20 years ago, but now it doesn't conform to modern
Okay so tell me what is better than TLS 1.3 then since you seem to think you know more about security than the entire security industry. Every enterprise on the planet uses an iteration of secure socket layer most commonly TLS 1.2 in 2022.
AV> JC> Of course SSL doesn't stop routed netmail from being read by a SysOp AV> JC> in the middle though, so in this case Mystic does AES-256 encrypted AV> AV> Using the artifically weakened cryptography is a very, very unwise idea.
If the widespread enterprise-level adoption of AES-256 is inferior and very very unwise for two-way encryption, then please let us (and the rest of the security world) know what should be used instead?
How will be ever protect our highly classified FidoNet netmail with the never-been-compromised AES-256? lolol
Assuming there is no future flaw discovered in the algorithm, it would take every single computer on the planet thousands of years to brute force a single AES key.
I don't think you could have possibly missed the mark any more than you did with this post lol.
... Some people have no idea what they're doing, and are really good at it!
