Hi, all

This case has pass timeout. I am closing it as approved.

--Irene
Irene Huang wrote:
> Hi, all
>
> I am resetting the time out for this case to be August 29th.
> Any issues please send an email before then.
>
> Thanks
>
> --Irene
>
> Brian Cameron wrote:
>>
>> Henry:
>>
>> Much more clear.  Thanks.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>>> Brian Cameron ??:
>>>>
>>>> Henry:
>>>>
>>>> The one pager does not mention the ~/.gkrellm2/plugins-gkrellmd/
>>>> interface, nor does it mention that end users can install their own
>>>> plugins.
>>>>
>>>> In section 4.1 you say:
>>>>
>>>>        And in order to make install plugin, you should be root,
>>>>        and ensure the plugin will not add additional security issue.
>>>>
>>>> The above seems a bit misleading since you can also install plugins
>>>> as users.  You don't need to be root.
>>>
>>> That make sense, I added the content on the end-user plugin supports.
>>>>
>>>> In section 4.11, you say
>>>>
>>>>         This application uses OpenSSL, and support plugins, it may 
>>>> cause
>>>>         some security concern,
>>>>
>>>> It isn't clear if you are saying that there is some security concern
>>>> with OpenSSL or plugins, or both.  Is the security concern the same
>>>> or different for these two things?
>>>>
>>>>         but generally all data transfered through the connection
>>>>         is the system usage status information, and not very
>>>>         confidential,
>>>>
>>>> It is probably reasonable to say this for the default plugins, but
>>>> I'd think that an end user could install plugins that do not follow
>>>> this general rule.
>>>>
>>>>         addtionally in order to make the network connection more 
>>>> secure,
>>>>         this application is using SSH and some configuration on 
>>>> IP/port
>>>>         to use,
>>>>
>>>> Do you mean to say "this application uses SSH and allows the sysadmin
>>>> to specify which IP/port to use via configuration."   Are you 
>>>> suggesting
>>>> that being able to configure the IP/port adds security?  You misspell
>>>> "Additionally".
>>>>
>>>> In general I find section 4.11 a little hard to read since it is one
>>>> long sentence.
>>> I updated the one-pager, hope this make things more clear.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I would summary the discussion below.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1, The battery support on Solaris:
>>>>> I investigated 2 solution, one is the  patch wrote by David, but 
>>>>> this patch is using acpidrv.h and /dev/acpidrv which are not on 
>>>>> Solaris now, the other solution is using HAL, I think this is a 
>>>>> solution we can use.
>>>>> So I am implementing to use HAL/Dbus for the battery information.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2, SSL certification authentication:
>>>>> I checked the bugzilla, and no category for GKrellM, I sent a mail 
>>>>> to the maintainer on this issue. I am discussing with him on how 
>>>>> to fix this problem..
>>>>>
>>>>> 3, Security impact:
>>>>> Add some content to describe the possible impaction.
>>>>>
>>>>> Attachment is the updated one-pager..
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Henry
>>>>>
>>>>> Henry Zhang ??:
>>>>>> Hi Darren,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks, I will file a bug on this issue...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Henry
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Darren J Moffat ??:
>>>>>>> I see from the code that it is passing SSL_VERIFY_NONE to 
>>>>>>> SSL_CTX_set_verify()
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  From the man page:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      SSL_VERIFY_NONE
>>>>>>>          Server mode: the server will not send a client
>>>>>>>          certificate request to the client, so the client will
>>>>>>>          not send a certificate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>          Client mode: if not using an anonymous cipher (by
>>>>>>>          default disabled), the server will send a certificate
>>>>>>>          which will be checked. The result of the certificate
>>>>>>>          verification process can be checked after the TLS/SSL
>>>>>>>          handshake using the SSL_get_verify_result(3) function.
>>>>>>>          The handshake will be continued regardless of the
>>>>>>>          verification result.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the answer for the case.  Personally I'm not happy with 
>>>>>>> this however it is what gkrellm does and it answers my 
>>>>>>> question.  I would like the project team to file a bug upstream 
>>>>>>> (if there isn't one already) to provide functionality to 
>>>>>>> actually verify the server's SSL/TLS certificate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> Darren J Moffat
>>>>
>>
>


Reply via email to