Re: kern.maxclusters vs syn proxy

2012-08-23 Thread Илья Шипицин
2012/8/23 Claudio Jeker cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com

 On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:17:04AM +0600,  ??? wrote:
  Hello!
 
 
  we are running high load https server on OpenBSD, so there are questions
 on
  performance:
 
  since we already had to increase kern.maxclusters value, I guess default
  OpenBSD settings are not very well for high load https server ?
  in order to protect our server from denial of service, we can either
 
  a) increase kern.maxclusters to some huge value

 It is OK to increase kern.maxclusters, the default is good enough for 90%
 of the people but some systems need more. Calculate how much memory will
 be consumed by the clusters and compare it to the free memory reported by
 top. You don't want to run userland out of memory by buffering in the
 kernel. On the other hand you want enough maxclusters to make the system
 run smoothly.


so, there's no harm in huge kern.maxcluster values ? (until I keep enough
memory for userland)



  b) turn on syn proxy in PF

 Syn proxy will only protect you from syn attacks. For this there is also
 the syn cache used by the network stack. The syn cache will only allocate
 a full PCB when the handshake completed so it behaves similar to the syn
 proxy in PF.


is syn cache enabled by default ?
am I right that syn cache does almost the same as syn proxy ?



  does someone have experience with such high load applications and tell me
  pro et contra for each solution?
  why syn proxy is not enabled by default ?

 Because it has bad side-effects. Like accepting a connection before the
 actual server accepted it. So it is hard to signal closed ports back.


any other side-effect ?



 --
 :wq Claudio



Re: OpenSSL handling intermediate certificates

2012-08-23 Thread Justin N. Lindberg
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 13:29:57 -0400
Nico Kadel-Garcia nka...@gmail.com wrote:

 Such certificates have already been stolen. They're dependent on the
 security of the intermediate key owners, and the are demonstrably
 unsecure: Check this URL for more details on the release of rogue SSL
 signing certificates through a Dutch firm:
 
 
 http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9219606/Hackers_stole_Google_SSL_certificate_Dutch_firm_admits
 

So why isn't there a good way for an end user to strictly limit trust
in, for example, a Google Internet Authority to those domains that
are actually owned by Google, and conversely, not to trust any other
authority to sign certs for domains owned by Google?

A single organization is about as far as I'd ideally want to extend
trust at any one time anyway, and only for what I trust that
organization for, because this whole SSL/x.509/PKI thing superficially
appears to be hierarchical, but (as you've pointed out) in reality
there is no hierarchy, because there are no limits to how far the trust
is extended once we have these unknown intermediate certs. And just
earlier this year, we're informed of a rather interesting common
industry practice: 

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9224082/Trustwave_admits_issuing_man_in_the_middle_digital_certificate_Mozilla_debates_punishment

So you can close the barn door all you want with revocation, but that
won't bring the cows back home from this particular pasture.



RENTAMOS SALONES PARA; CAPACITACIONES, CONGRESOS, EXPOS, CONFERENCIAS, CASTINGS, RECLUTAMIENTO

2012-08-23 Thread CARLOPAYES
RENTAMOS SALONES PARA; CAPACITACIONES, CONGRESOS, EXPOS, CONFERENCIAS,
CASTINGS, RECLUTAMIENTO Y SELECCION, RUEDAS DE PRENSA, PRESENTACIONES DE
LIBROS, PRESENTACIONES DE DISCOS, JUNTAS ESTRATEGICAS.
TAMBIEN PUEDES HACER EVENTOS PRIVADOS; FAMILIARES (XV AÑOS, DESPEDIDAS DE
SOLTERAS, GRADUACIONES, PETICIONES DE MANO, ETC.), EMPRESARIALES; GALAS,
COMIDAS, ANIVERSARIOS, CONVENCIONES, ETC.).

SI VIENES DE PROVINCIA; CITAR PROVEEDORES, PARTNER´S, JUNTAS
ESTRATEGICAS.

SI TIENES UN GRUPO POLITICOS; REUNIONES PRIVADAS.

NUESTRO CORPORATIVO, EN DONDE PONEMOS A TUS ORDENES 27 SALONES DE
DIVERSAS CAPACIDADES, DESDE 3 Y HASTA 150 PERSONAS.

ESTAMOS EN LA MEJOR, MAS COMUNICADA, CON LA MEJOR INFRAESTRUCTURA Y MAS
SEGURA ZONA DEL PAÍS: INSURGENTES SUR 1223, ESQUINA SUR DEL PARQUE
HUNDIDO, COL. EXTREMADURA INSURGENTES, DELEG. BENITO JUÁREZ, MÉXICO,
CITY. CP.03740

CONTRATA YA!!!, TELS: 56119709, 56111841, 55637420 y 55986212.
MAIL; renta.salo...@oyapac.com
NUESTRA WEB: WWW.OYAPAC.COM

RESERVACIONES Y CONTRATACIONES DE LUNES A VIERNES DE 10:00 A 19:00



Le Duc Toan đã để lại cho bạn 1 tin nhắn

2012-08-23 Thread Le Duc Toan
Xin chào,

Le Duc Toan đã gửi một tin nhắn cho bạn 

Nhận thư từ Le Duc Toan!:
http://myzamana.net/l?secret=360975382_a6b25eeb78b30523

Chúc vui vẻ!
Đội ngũ myZamana 



Bạn đã nhận được email này vì một thành viên myZamana đã 
gửi một tin nhắn cho bạn. Đây là hộp thư chỉ cho phép gửi. 
Trả lời cho tin nhắn này sẽ không được giám sát hay nhận 
được trả lời. Không muốn nhận những email như vầy trong 
tÆ°Æ¡ng lai?
http://myzamana.net/u?i=360975382h=a6b25eeb78b30523



Building i386 -cureent Userland failed

2012-08-23 Thread Insan Praja SW

Hi Misc@,

When I tried to build userland on i386 -current, the following error occur;

/usr/src/kerberosV/usr.bin/klist/../../src/kuser/klist.c: In function  
'display_tokens':
/usr/src/kerberosV/usr.bin/klist/../../src/kuser/klist.c:496: error:  
'VIOCGETTOK' undeclared (first use in this function)
/usr/src/kerberosV/usr.bin/klist/../../src/kuser/klist.c:496: error: (Each  
undeclared identifier is reported only once
/usr/src/kerberosV/usr.bin/klist/../../src/kuser/klist.c:496: error: for  
each function it appears in.)

*** Error code 1
Stop in /usr/src/kerberosV/usr.bin/klist:
 Exit status 1 (klist.o, line 89 of /usr/share/mk/sys.mk)
Stop in /usr/src/kerberosV/usr.bin:
 Exit status 2 (all, line 48 of /usr/share/mk/bsd.subdir.mk)
Stop in /usr/src/kerberosV:
 Exit status 2 (all, line 48 of /usr/share/mk/bsd.subdir.mk)
Stop in /usr/src:
 Exit status 2 (all, line 48 of /usr/share/mk/bsd.subdir.mk)
*** Error code 2
*** Error code 2
*** Error code 2
*** Error code 2
Stop in /usr/src:
 Exit status 2 (build, line 80 of Makefile)

Any hints how to fix this?

Thanks,


Insan Praja SW

--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/



Welcome to myZamana!

2012-08-23 Thread myZamana
Welcome to myZamana!

Your account has been setup. Now, follow these tips to get started:

Add photos of yourself!
http://myzamana.net/account?i=361671669h=813737fcee79f2b9
The more photos you add, the more people will see you!

Edit your profile
http://myzamana.net/5651240?i=361671669h=813737fcee79f2b9
Show people how interesting you are :)

Find your friends on myZamana!
http://myzamana.net/import?i=361671669h=813737fcee79f2b9
5,650,343 people are on myZamana — Find out which of your friends are already 
here!

Sign in to myZamana and start meeting new people:

Your sign in details

Email: misc@openbsd.org

Password: 971bmkmo

Please keep your sign-in details somewhere safe.

If clicking the links in this message does not work, copy and paste them into 
the address bar of your browser:
http://myzamana.net/upload.php?i=361671669h=813737fcee79f2b9

Have fun!
The myZamana Team



Re: Building i386 -cureent Userland failed

2012-08-23 Thread Christian Weisgerber
Insan Praja SW insan.pr...@gmail.com wrote:

 /usr/src/kerberosV/usr.bin/klist/../../src/kuser/klist.c:496: error:  
 'VIOCGETTOK' undeclared (first use in this function)

 Any hints how to fix this?

This might be enough.  My build is still running...

Index: kerberosV/src/lib/kafs/kafs.h
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/kerberosV/src/lib/kafs/kafs.h,v
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -p -r1.9 kafs.h
--- kerberosV/src/lib/kafs/kafs.h   23 Aug 2012 06:42:54 -  1.9
+++ kerberosV/src/lib/kafs/kafs.h   23 Aug 2012 14:21:15 -
@@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ struct ViceIoctl {
 #endif /* _VICEIOCTL */
 
 #define VIOCSETTOK _VICEIOCTL(3)
+#define VIOCGETTOK _VICEIOCTL(8)
 #define VIOCUNLOG  _VICEIOCTL(9)
 #define VIOC_FILE_CELL_NAME_VICEIOCTL(30)
 
-- 
Christian naddy Weisgerber  na...@mips.inka.de



Re: OpenSSL handling intermediate certificates

2012-08-23 Thread Ted Unangst
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 01:37, Justin N. Lindberg wrote:
 
 So why isn't there a good way for an end user to strictly limit trust
 in, for example, a Google Internet Authority to those domains that
 are actually owned by Google, and conversely, not to trust any other
 authority to sign certs for domains owned by Google?

The people designing the protocol never got that far.

Anyway the workaround du jour is certificate pinning.  Your browser is
supposed to remember the cert used for the previous connection and
warn if it changes, which reduces the window of opportunity.



Re: OpenSSL handling intermediate certificates

2012-08-23 Thread Ryan Kirk
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Ted Unangst t...@tedunangst.com wrote:
people designing the protocol never got that far.

 Anyway the workaround du jour is certificate pinning.  Your browser is
 supposed to remember the cert used for the previous connection and
 warn if it changes, which reduces the window of opportunity.


And a poor workaround at that. The only browser this works well in is
Chrome, and only with Google properties. In Firefox, the Certificate
Patrol add-on is bothersome to the user as it constantly asks
permission, to the point of crying wolf. Large organizations with
multiple certificates for the same site, such as Google and Microsoft,
are not understood by this add-on.

Firefox 17 is working towards a native certificate pinning feature. I
hope the release of that feature works well and spurs other browser
vendors to follow suit.

One thing I've never understood is that if you're MITM'd, what good is
a cert revocation going to do? The proxying individual can easily
block access to the revocation lists, and your browser be none the
wiser.

'DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities', in my opinion, is a more
promising system than certificate pinning, as it allows web site
operators to publish certificates (or hashes of them) in DNS. However,
this would require DNSSEC to be secure (which itself seems to be mired
in controvery lately, not to mention the slow rate of adoption), and
the project at IETF appears to be mostly dead:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dane/charter/



Re: OpenSSL handling intermediate certificates

2012-08-23 Thread Ted Unangst
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 13:12, Ryan Kirk wrote:
 One thing I've never understood is that if you're MITM'd, what good is
 a cert revocation going to do? The proxying individual can easily
 block access to the revocation lists, and your browser be none the
 wiser.

hahaha, I've seen exactly one program complain about being unable to
contact the revocation server.  The fucking java auto updater on
windows for some reason can never make contact.

 'DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities', in my opinion, is a more
 promising system than certificate pinning, as it allows web site
 operators to publish certificates (or hashes of them) in DNS. However,
 this would require DNSSEC to be secure (which itself seems to be mired
 in controvery lately, not to mention the slow rate of adoption), and
 the project at IETF appears to be mostly dead:
 https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dane/charter/

I'm not sure if this is the same proposal as the one I saw before, but
this is what really sold me on dnssec.  dns is a naturally delegated
hierarchy, it adapts well to a trust hierarchy.



Re: OpenSSL handling intermediate certificates

2012-08-23 Thread Florian Obser
On 08/23/12 20:05, Ted Unangst wrote:
 On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 13:12, Ryan Kirk wrote:
 One thing I've never understood is that if you're MITM'd, what good is
 a cert revocation going to do? The proxying individual can easily
 block access to the revocation lists, and your browser be none the
 wiser.
 
 hahaha, I've seen exactly one program complain about being unable to
 contact the revocation server.  The fucking java auto updater on
 windows for some reason can never make contact.

You could set security.OCSP.require to true in about:config in firefox.
The result is hilarious... (well, it was for me ~1.5 years ago, never
tried it again.)