Re: tarsnap-keygen: Error registering with server (too many network failures)

[tarsnap <tarsnap@infopower.nl>]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 14:02:09 +0100
John <john@commonpeople.uk> wrote:

> On 04/15/2016 01:43 PM, tarsnap wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 21:23:06 +0100
> > John <john@commonpeople.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> 1. You could test whether your firewall is the issue by disabling
> >> it entirely,
> >
> > That is a bad advise in general, and a very bad advise for a
> > 'truly paranoid' who is using tarsnap for a good reason.
> >
> > I most seriously advise against doing this as it could set you back
> > to the safety level of Dropbox and the likes.
> > My advise would be to read the firewall rules and check that way
> > whether or not the tarsnap servers are blocked or not.
> >
> > joe
> 
> You did selectively trim out the bit of code where I turned the
> firewall back on within a second of turning it off, Joe. What you
> write may well be right as regards paranoia, but I didn't suggest
> leaving the firewall off. It would be off for the duration of the
> keygen process and no longer, and it would immediately and
> unambiguously show whether it was the firewall on the server which
> was preventing the connection.

Well I'm sorry, that was not intentional and absolutely not
consciously selective. 
It's true that I missed the interpretation of 'once you know the
answer' as being switched off for only one second and was certainly
assuming it would be more than that. Hence my response as it was posted.

I'd also like to point out that there are enough examples of computers
that, within 15 minutes of their firewall being switched off, were
already hacked into. And that was some years ago. 
So still, I would not recommend turning off the firewall at all.

It has been published that merely the fact of using encryption puts one
in the crosshairs of some if not more alphabet soup institutions, so,
as a 'truely paranoid', I'm assuming that would involve monitoring of
your system for vulnerabilities. Or at least, if I were 'them', I
surely would see that as an option to be able to peek into one's PC.

I hope my explanation can leave you without bad feelings,

joe


> John.