Brian,
I agree. The ntpq rv includes a banner what reveals the build time,
version and system and at least for Sun the modifier. As pointed out in
a reply to a private message, this is probably a sufficient signature
for our purposes.
I did a stupid thing for not asking for this information in the first
place. Newsreaders be advised, it would save much time and sweat if the
ntpq "version" and "processor" information is included with the query.
Dave
Brian Utterback wrote:
David L. Mills wrote:
Bjorn,
You are absolutely correct. What the Corpsmen need to know is that, if
the vendor does something surprising, we need a machanism to detect
that and immediatly deflect to the vendor's helpdesk. I am very
serious. The distribtution needs a signature.
I don't think that a signature is possible. You could establish a
"best practice" such that some kind of "modified" banner appeared
in the logs, but a signature would mean that it would change for
each and every change made by all the developers.
Note that the banner Solaris displays is:
xntpd 3-5.93e+sun 03/08/29 16:23:05 (1.4)
The "+sun" being the giveaway. Failing that, I think that we need to
be liberal in what we accept. Innocent until proven guilty. The
newsgroup is essentially "best effort" anyway. If anybody thinks that
the code is not vanilla, then just don't respond. If the reason you
think that the code is not vanilla is relevant to the discussion,
then post your thinking. No need to waste hours discussing whether
or not it is "supported", since we are all donating our time, someone
else might be willing to forge ahead even if the code is not vanilla.
_______________________________________________
questions mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
