Re: [Sks-devel] Oh, Jeeez...!

2016-05-26 Thread Robert J. Hansen
> The administrators of the SKS servers should be able to choose the level > of complexity of the proof of work using a parameter in the SKS server > configuration file. No, they shouldn't. Think about it. If you're an attacker looking to bypass this mechanism, what do you do? You find the

Re: [Sks-devel] memory leak: solved

2016-05-26 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
following up from a rather old thread... On Thu 2015-04-30 14:52:48 -0400, Tobias Mueller wrote: > On Fr, 2015-04-10 at 17:18 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: >> I consider this a bug in SKS, if it can overconsume RAM on the basis >> of one misbehaving or rejecting peer. >> >> the implication

Re: [Sks-devel] seeking peers for keyserver.flippylosaurus.eu

2016-05-26 Thread Jeremy T. Bouse
Doesn't seem strange at all if it is behind Apache or Nginx that listens on 11371... Though Apache/Nginx could be made to listen on 11371 on the public IP and SKS listen on 11371 on a private IP or loopback... that's actually what I do. On 5/26/2016 9:41 AM, Gabor Kiss wrote: >> I'm running a

Re: [Sks-devel] seeking peers for keyserver.flippylosaurus.eu

2016-05-26 Thread Gabor Kiss
> I'm running a SKS server version 1.1.5 - hostname > keyserver.flippylosaurus.eu. It should be accessible via IPv4 (v6 should Why page http://keyserver.flippylosaurus.eu:11371/pks/lookup?op=stats writes this? HTTP port: 11372 It is quite strange. :-) Gabor -- No smoke, no drugs, no