On 14/02/2024 09:31, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Willy Manga wrote:
Is it possible the default ntpd.conf file use something like
"servers openbsd.pool.ntp.org" and of course have openbsd.pool.ntp.org
looking for IPv6 nodes?
Not going to happen.
Fine. Can we at least have a workaround from the
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 04:55:20AM +0100, b...@fea.st wrote:
> “A single packet can exhaust the processing
> capacity of a vulnerable DNS server, effectively
> disabling the machine, by exploiting a
> 20-plus-year-old design flaw in the DNSSEC
> specification.
>
>
Willy Manga wrote:
> Is it possible the default ntpd.conf file use something like
>
> "servers openbsd.pool.ntp.org" and of course have openbsd.pool.ntp.org
> looking for IPv6 nodes?
Not going to happen.
Hello.
I'm running ntp-4.2.8pl10p6 on openbsd7.4 .. I saw messages like this one
"ntpd[26862]: DNS lookup tempfail"
This node is running with IPv6-only.
Since I did not have IPv4, I initially only commented the constraint
with IPv4 . But it was not enough.
Then I realised that
On 2/14/24 04:55, b...@fea.st wrote:
“A single packet can exhaust the processing
capacity of a vulnerable DNS server, effectively
disabling the machine, by exploiting a
20-plus-year-old design flaw in the DNSSEC
specification.
“A single packet can exhaust the processing
capacity of a vulnerable DNS server, effectively
disabling the machine, by exploiting a
20-plus-year-old design flaw in the DNSSEC
specification.
https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/13/dnssec_vulnerability_internet/
Am 13.02.2024 19:07 schrieb Samuel Jayden:
Also I've another question:
Is it feasible to achieve CARP and VRRP interoperability through a
user-space application?
One step back.. you're looking for using one cisco router and one
OpenBSD box as a redundant pair? I've no idea and in over 20y I
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024, at 6:37 AM, Odhiambo Washington wrote:
> Is there a disadvantage to having this layout style where everything is on
> 1 partition?
Beyond the plethora of responses you've already received, the Installation
section of the FAQ covers this thoroughly:
Hello Marcus,
Thank you for your response.
>From the information provided in the link, it appears that CARP and VRRP
protocols aren't inherently interoperable.
While Cisco may have attempted to address this by introducing a command
like "disable-loop-detection carp" in its Nexus 1000V virtual
Hello Samuel,
samueljaydan1...@gmail.com (Samuel Jayden), 2024.02.13 (Tue) 17:35 (CET):
> I am reaching out to seek guidance on creating redundancy between a Cisco
> Router and OpenBSD. After conducting extensive research on the subject, I
> find myself in need of clarification on a specific
Here's someone who apparently had the same or similar
problem on Arch Linux, and managed to solve it:
https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/669853/printscreen-key-not-registering-in-arch-linux
Just changing the SysRq keycode doesn't work for me tho.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 6:00 PM Frank Habicht wrote:
> On 13/02/2024 16:52, Odhiambo Washington wrote:
> > Thanks a million for such a nice explanation.
> > Let me now ask Google about those flags.
> ^^
> you misspelled "the man pages"
>
> Frank
>
Heheee... it's just today
Hello OpenBSD,
I am reaching out to seek guidance on creating redundancy between a Cisco
Router and OpenBSD. After conducting extensive research on the subject, I
find myself in need of clarification on a specific point.
My intention is to employ the use of the CARP protocol in OpenBSD and VRRP
Hello again,
The patch you suggested definitely worked; OpenBSD no longer crashes. Thank
you very much.
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 2:40 PM Samuel Jayden
wrote:
> Hello Valdrin,
>
> Thanks, I'll check it out and write here soon.
>
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 12:40 PM Valdrin MUJA
> wrote:
>
>>
Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2024/02/13 07:36, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Stuart Henderson wrote:
> >
> > > On 2024-02-13, Kirill A Korinsky wrote:
> > > > Good day,
> > > >
> > > > I'm updating go's syscall table to modern OpenBSD (7.4).
> > >
> > > Save your time. Post-7.4 you cannot call
On 2024/02/13 07:36, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
> > On 2024-02-13, Kirill A Korinsky wrote:
> > > Good day,
> > >
> > > I'm updating go's syscall table to modern OpenBSD (7.4).
> >
> > Save your time. Post-7.4 you cannot call syscall() any more.
>
> The result seems to
On 13/02/2024 16:52, Odhiambo Washington wrote:
Thanks a million for such a nice explanation.
Let me now ask Google about those flags.
^^
you misspelled "the man pages"
Frank
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 5:21 PM Andreas Kähäri
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 04:52:08PM +0300, Odhiambo Washington wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 4:12 PM Janne Johansson
> wrote:
> >
> > > Den tis 13 feb. 2024 kl 13:40 skrev Odhiambo Washington <
> > > odhia...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > >
Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2024-02-13, Kirill A Korinsky wrote:
> > Good day,
> >
> > I'm updating go's syscall table to modern OpenBSD (7.4).
>
> Save your time. Post-7.4 you cannot call syscall() any more.
The result seems to have nothing to do with syscalls.
It is the same as the build
On 2024-02-13, Kirill A Korinsky wrote:
> Good day,
>
> I'm updating go's syscall table to modern OpenBSD (7.4).
Save your time. Post-7.4 you cannot call syscall() any more.
--
Please keep replies on the mailing list.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 04:52:08PM +0300, Odhiambo Washington wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 4:12 PM Janne Johansson wrote:
>
> > Den tis 13 feb. 2024 kl 13:40 skrev Odhiambo Washington <
> > odhia...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > Is there a disadvantage to having this layout style where everything
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 4:12 PM Janne Johansson wrote:
> Den tis 13 feb. 2024 kl 13:40 skrev Odhiambo Washington <
> odhia...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > Is there a disadvantage to having this layout style where everything is
> on
> > 1 partition?
>
> A few. The partitioning scheme allow certain parts
A very nice explanation, Janne, thank you!
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 14:12:10 +0100
Janne Johansson wrote:
> A few. The partitioning scheme allow certain parts of the filesystem
> to have different permissions,
>
> /dev/sd1a on / type ffs (local)
> /dev/sd1e on /home type ffs (local, nodev, nosuid)
Den tis 13 feb. 2024 kl 13:40 skrev Odhiambo Washington :
>
> Is there a disadvantage to having this layout style where everything is on
> 1 partition?
A few. The partitioning scheme allow certain parts of the filesystem
to have different permissions,
/dev/sd1a on / type ffs (local)
/dev/sd1e on
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:10:44 +0100,
Janne Johansson wrote:
>
> I can run them on mips64 for you at least.
>
I'll appriciete this. After that I only need
- arm
- arm64
- ppc64
- riscv64
Can you run something like this?
doas pkg_add bash git go
git clone -b opebsd-syscalls
Is there a disadvantage to having this layout style where everything is on
1 partition?
```
openbsd$ uname -a
OpenBSD openbsd.vmbridge.local 7.4 GENERIC.MP#1397 amd64
openbsd$ df -h
Filesystem SizeUsed Avail Capacity Mounted on
/dev/sd0a 43.3G1.7G 39.5G 5%/
openbsd$
> Good day,
>
> I'm updating go's syscall table to modern OpenBSD (7.4).
> For some architectures it was updated more than decade ago, and a lot of
> things
> had changed.
> To do it I need to run commands like:
>
> cd src
> ulimit -S -d $(ulimit -H -d)
> env CGO_ENABLED=1 CC=cc CXX=c++
Good day,
I'm updating go's syscall table to modern OpenBSD (7.4).
For some architectures it was updated more than decade ago, and a lot of things
had changed.
To do it I need to run commands like:
cd src
ulimit -S -d $(ulimit -H -d)
env CGO_ENABLED=1 CC=cc CXX=c++ ./make.bash
cd
On 2024-02-13, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 08:29:59AM +, jonathon575 wrote:
>> Kindly find below log entries generated from tcpdump of the pflog. The is a
>> fresh install & updated openbsd 7.4, with bare-minimum installation
>> configured for a firewall. There are
Le 13/02/2024 à 10:07, Manuel Giraud a écrit :
Joel Carnat writes:
Hello,
I'm trying to configure relayd(8) to use tags, to allow legit host
names only and modify HTTP headers, and fallback. But I can't have it
working properly.
Using such a configuration:
#-8<---
table { 192.0.2.4 }
Joel Carnat writes:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to configure relayd(8) to use tags, to allow legit host
> names only and modify HTTP headers, and fallback. But I can't have it
> working properly.
>
> Using such a configuration:
> #-8<---
> table { 192.0.2.4 }
> table { 192.0.2.7}
> http
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 08:29:59AM +, jonathon575 wrote:
> Kindly find below log entries generated from tcpdump of the pflog. The is a
> fresh install & updated openbsd 7.4, with bare-minimum installation
> configured for a firewall. There are no x* programs installed.
>
> Feb 11
The proposed rules don't seem to change relayd(8)'s behaviour.
It keeps sending HTTP traffic to the primary server and fail when it is
down. The secondary / fallback server is never used.
Starting status:
relayd[26195]: host 192.0.2.7, check http code (14ms,http code ok),
state unknown -> up,
Subject: Log files and Zero click exploits
Greetings,
Kindly find below log entries generated from tcpdump of the pflog. The is a
fresh install & updated openbsd 7.4, with bare-minimum installation configured
for a firewall. There are no x* programs installed.
Feb 11 18:09:41.682345 rule
On 2024-02-12, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
> Anyway in 2024 still not have a decent native ssh client on Window
Except it does, a port of openssh.
35 matches
Mail list logo
