From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: A couple of questions and concerns about Emacs network security Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2018 21:53:22 +0300 Message-ID: <83sh4th84d.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83o9g2uhju.fsf@gnu.org> <20180705115826.73c1d95e@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <878t6lom8g.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> <87pnzxn4kw.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> <87fu0tmxfs.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> <83va9pha36.fsf@gnu.org> <83tvp9h9dv.fsf@gnu.org> <87y3ellggt.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1531075914 11994 195.159.176.226 (8 Jul 2018 18:51:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 18:51:54 +0000 (UTC) Cc: wyuenho@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jul 08 20:51:50 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fcEmk-00031X-Cn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 08 Jul 2018 20:51:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37928 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fcEor-0003jl-Kx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 08 Jul 2018 14:54:01 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41773) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fcEoD-0003jT-2P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Jul 2018 14:53:22 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fcEo8-00058n-7j for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Jul 2018 14:53:21 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:40859) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fcEo8-00058i-3y; Sun, 08 Jul 2018 14:53:16 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2171 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1fcEo7-00032N-HR; Sun, 08 Jul 2018 14:53:15 -0400 In-reply-to: <87y3ellggt.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> (message from Lars Ingebrigtsen on Sun, 08 Jul 2018 20:39:30 +0200) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:227128 Archived-At: > From: Lars Ingebrigtsen > Cc: Jimmy Yuen Ho Wong , emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2018 20:39:30 +0200 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > Thanks. According to that, it's 1008 since GnuTLS 3.3.0. Perhaps we > > should tell that in the doc string of gnutls-min-prime-bits, or at > > least in a comment there. > > Yeah, but since it varies from GnuTLS release to release, we'd have to > keep updating it. Yes, that's unfortunate. But if the value doesn't change too frequently (as it seems, since 3.3.0 was what? 4 years ago?), maybe it isn't a catastrophe. > so I think it's better just to not say anything. Or just "what nil > means depends on the GnuTLS version". Problem is, I cannot find this number in the GnuTLS documentation, either. Maybe I'm blind; but if not, it means our users have no reasonable way of knowing how many bits they are using, and that is not good, IMO. > Users aren't supposed to care about that variable, anyway, since the NSM > warns about less than 1024 bits... Yes, but what if GnuTLS bumps the default to more than that? And even if not, I think I might like to know how far below 1024 I'm going to be if I allow the connection.