Redjard

There was a confusing name change, and it doesn't help that ecdsa/ed25519 has two names, but the number 25519 is specific to this fixed version. Funnily if you quote search nsa and ec25519, this thread is the only result besides one ycom thread (which also is in context of them being safe).

ec25519 is not a typical name for it used in any software afaik, only in writing.

Edit: Historically ecdsa used to refer to the backdoored one. Since it has fallen so much out of use, ecdsa now means ed25519 since it's usually imcorrecly called ecdsa and also changed to ed25519. It is of course better to specify 25519.

Speaking of which

and intentionally put vulnerabilities into Ec25519

25519 is the fixed one. It is also not backdoored. Please fix that aswell. It is only Dual_EC_DRBG that is affected, not RSA nor ECDSA/ED25519

NSA has long since broken RSA

This is clearly referring to the algorithm. You don't "break" a company.

There is also little reason to bring up the RSA company at all, it is for all intents completely irrelevant.

Please just edit your root message to talk about the EC (Dual_EC_DRBG) that is not really in use anywhere but at least real and something security people know of.

If you say the nsa has broken rsa, you are making a lot of sysadmins sweat for no reason.

You linked the article I was talking about.

There are two, different, unrelated things:

RSA, Rivest–Shamir–Adleman, an asymmetric encryption, that comes in sizes like rsa2048 and rsa4096. It is now, having largely been replaced by ecdsa, which is using elliptic curves, a different kind of mathematics. The main benefit of EC is smaller key sizes.
If you have old ssh keys, they are likely id_rsa. New ones are likely id_ecdsa.

The NSA tried to backdoor elliptic curves, long after rsa the encryption was already around (rsa encryption dates back to the 70s). This presumably nsa-backdoored EC implementation is quite famous, and what your article is talking about on the technical side. This EC has been largely abandoned. An ssh key named id_ecdsa or id_ed25519 will be using a known secure EC using different safe seed values.

Now, RSA encryption and EC encryption are two separate categories, an asymmetric encryption algorithm is either RSA or EC (or something else), but never both.

Enter stage left the company "RSA", RSA Security LLC.
This is a company originally founded to market rsa encryption, hence the name. It has long been owned by another company within which it now deals with many different encryption algorithms and related tech.
It does not own the rsa algorithm, and it of course has no influence over it. The algorithm is set in stone and has been for decades. If you try to change it you are making something new with a different name.

This company was naturally dealing with the hot new encryption tech of 2014, called EC cryptography. Which, as you may recall, is mutually exclusive to being the rsa algorithm.

RSA Security LLC was apparenlty influenced by the nsa to adopt their broken EC cryptography. This of course makes the company, their products, etc., all suspect.

Now stay with me here. The company RSA Security LLC, which is suspect, is not related to the algorithm called RSA. If the company is suspect, this does not call the RSA algorithm into question, which has been subject of cryptographic analysis for decades and predates RSA Security LLC by a number of years.

The suspect thing is a special EC crptographic implementation, which excludes the rsa algorithm being involved.

Now let's read the article:

[...] Dual_EC_DRBG, was ratified by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in 2007 and is attracting a lot of attention for having a potential backdoor. This is the algorithm into which the NSA allegedly inserted a backdoor and then paid RSA to use.

An EC algorithm. Meaning not RSA.
"paid RSA". Since this is definitely not RSA encryption, it must be RSA Security LLC.
"paid RSA". You cannot pay an algorithm, only a company. Thus, this is RSA Security LLC.

My dude, rsa is fine. This article is talking about a company called rsa, not rsa encryption.
I have never heard of doubt about rsa's security, given enough size. The main issue with raa is that it needs to be thousands of bits in size due to not being very efficient. And of course it is not post quantum.

GTT (gpu swap) is handled by the gpu driver, so only nvidia can see if they can add it to their closed source drivers. radv is the amd vulkan driver.

This means continued security patches until at least end of 2027, so at the earliest these will be out of support in 2028.

Realistically this will be much longer into the future, as the LTS window of multiple LTS releases is likely to be extended more.
I'd be surprised if these go out of support before 2032

Molly supports unified push

Notification logging is usually done by some other part of android as far as I know. GMS is the typical way to deliver notifications and is a far more serious privacy concern, since it also directly passes googles servers and is not encrypted. However as others mentioned, signal does not send contents there, message notifications with the message contents stay on device.

This is about a history of notifications locally on the phone.
This is implemented outside of gms at least on my rom, and in the past I have also installed a separate app to do the same.
If you log your notifications ... that log can leak your notifications.

It's an early step. Good chance it doesn't work well in humans, and many side effects can't be discovered until human trials either.

Vertragsrecht get da normalerweise von der Erwartungshaltung aus.
Bei Autos ist abschleppen und Bußgeld typisch. Aber niemand geht bei dem einfachen Nutzungsvertrag für Eintrittsgeld von Bußgeldern aus die zentausend mal höher liegen, oder überhaupt von Bußgeldern. Das ist die selbe Logik die dich davor schützt dass jemand so ne Klausel irgendwo böswillig versteckt.
Ich kann ja auch nicht nen Laden aufmachen dann in die Hausregeln setzen dass wer mit dem Linken Fuß eintritt sich verplichtet mir ne Million zu zahlen Frist 3 Jahre dann 3 Jahre später hunderttausen Kunden verklagen.

Also das Recht geht korrekterweise davon aus das quasi keiner so Verträge ließt oder versteht, also wenn ne typische person nicht erwarten würde was drin steht wirds schwer.

Wenn man jetzt beim Eintritt jedem verbal den Kern erklärt und nen Zettel unterschreiben lässt auf dem groß steht "Ich zahl Jedem den ich hier ohne deren Erlaubniss filme oder photographiere 1000,-€" dann vielleicht. Aber dann verschreckt man sich die Kundschaft.
Und am Ende kommt man wahrscheinlich trotzdem mit jeder wackeligen Ausrede da raus.