[9fans] Scheme 9 ported to Plan 9

2015-07-02 Thread Nils M Holm

Scheme 9 from Empty Space (pun intended and originally a reference
to the movie, not to the OS) is an interpreter for R4RS Scheme.

In 2008 Bakul Shah pointed out that an interpreter with that name
should run on the Plan 9 OS and helped me port it. Ever since the
Plan 9 port has been in varying stages of bit rot.

After all the years I finally came around to straighten out some
rough edges of the Plan 9 port:

- the DEL key gets you back to the prompt instead of exiting the
  interpreter

- there is a target for system-wide installation in the mkfile
  (but S9 also runs in its source directory without installation)

- the HELP function works properly

So, if you are looking for a Scheme interpreter for Plan 9, look
no further! :)  http://t3x.org/s9fes

Enjoy!

-- 
Nils M Holm   n m h @ t 3 x . o r g   www.t3x.org



Re: [9fans] Scheme 9 ported to Plan 9

2015-07-02 Thread Ray Lai
Awesome work!

 On 2 Jul, 2015, at 4:11 pm, Nils M Holm n...@t3x.org wrote:
 
 
 Scheme 9 from Empty Space (pun intended and originally a reference
 to the movie, not to the OS) is an interpreter for R4RS Scheme.
 
 In 2008 Bakul Shah pointed out that an interpreter with that name
 should run on the Plan 9 OS and helped me port it. Ever since the
 Plan 9 port has been in varying stages of bit rot.
 
 After all the years I finally came around to straighten out some
 rough edges of the Plan 9 port:
 
 - the DEL key gets you back to the prompt instead of exiting the
  interpreter
 
 - there is a target for system-wide installation in the mkfile
  (but S9 also runs in its source directory without installation)
 
 - the HELP function works properly
 
 So, if you are looking for a Scheme interpreter for Plan 9, look
 no further! :)  http://t3x.org/s9fes
 
 Enjoy!
 
 -- 
 Nils M Holm   n m h @ t 3 x . o r g   www.t3x.org
 



[9fans] replace p9sk1 with something better(9front)

2015-07-02 Thread gracc
as per http://wiki.9front.org/bounties
replace p9sk1 with something better

I'm looking to start on this, does anyone have thoughts on improvements?
At the moment I am intending to just replace the DES keys with AES but
is there any call for more structural changes?

I was thinking that an overhaul using public keys might be appropriate
so that the auth server would still be a trusted key holder but without
secret keys having to leave the user's machine.

(9front mailing list was down so im sending to 9fans instead, sorry if
that's a bother)



Re: [9fans] replace p9sk1 with something better(9front)

2015-07-02 Thread Charles Forsyth
I hadn't looked at the bounties page recently. It includes

improve the tls(3) device $10 - The TLS device implements the record layer
protocols of Transport Layer Security version 1.0 and Secure Sockets Layer
version 3.0. It does not implement the handshake protocols, which are
responsible for mutual authentication and key exchange. Wanted: more
ciphers, support for user certificates, support for certificate
verification. ECDSA! ECDHE!

I think that I'd avoid putting the negotiation and certificate stuff (as
such) in the kernel device.


On 2 July 2015 at 13:57, Charles Forsyth charles.fors...@gmail.com wrote:


 On 2 July 2015 at 13:30, Anthony Sorace a...@9srv.net wrote:

 The p9sk1 *model* is great, and it'd be a real shame to drop it.


 There always seems to be trouble setting it up, which suggests that the
 documentation people typically first see might need revising
 (or better pointers if it exists but people don't find it).



Re: [9fans] replace p9sk1 with something better(9front)

2015-07-02 Thread st...@quintile.net
I think just replacing des keys with AES is not worth it. there is so little 
data that des is quite secure (imho).

replacing p9sk1 with pki is much more useful. rus posted to 9fans about wanting 
to do this so a terminal could cache tickets to speed auth when the auth server 
is remote - I cannot remember the details, sorry.

also pki would allow the old 9grid ideas to resurface, if there are enough 
plan9 machines left :-)

-Steve


ps. inferno already uses pki, it would be best to be compatible unless there is 
a very good reason not to be.



 On 2 Jul 2015, at 12:37, gracc oniic...@tfwno.gf wrote:
 
 as per http://wiki.9front.org/bounties
 replace p9sk1 with something better
 
 I'm looking to start on this, does anyone have thoughts on improvements?
 At the moment I am intending to just replace the DES keys with AES but
 is there any call for more structural changes?
 
 I was thinking that an overhaul using public keys might be appropriate
 so that the auth server would still be a trusted key holder but without
 secret keys having to leave the user's machine.
 
 (9front mailing list was down so im sending to 9fans instead, sorry if
 that's a bother)



Re: [9fans] replace p9sk1 with something better(9front)

2015-07-02 Thread Anthony Sorace
Personally, I think two separate things are called for.

1) A straight-forward update to use AES
2) Some public key system.

The p9sk1 *model* is great, and it'd be a real shame to drop it. Doing the 
upgrade and teaching should be easy, although there's tedious work in telling 
all the things to start using it,
The fun/interesting parts live in that second one, though. Lots of questions, 
starting with deciding if something existing might make sense to import 
(Inferno's public key system is the obvious first thing to look at there, but 
its details are dusty in my head). Public key systems have different enough 
properties that it'd be good to have both, in cases where one or the other fits 
the use case better.




Re: [9fans] replace p9sk1 with something better(9front)

2015-07-02 Thread Charles Forsyth
On 2 July 2015 at 13:30, Anthony Sorace a...@9srv.net wrote:

 The p9sk1 *model* is great, and it'd be a real shame to drop it.


There always seems to be trouble setting it up, which suggests that the
documentation people typically first see might need revising
(or better pointers if it exists but people don't find it).


Re: [9fans] replace p9sk1 with something better(9front)

2015-07-02 Thread Charles Forsyth
On 2 July 2015 at 17:44, Skip Tavakkolian skip.tavakkol...@gmail.com
wrote:

 isn't it settled that keeping of secrets and exchange thereof are the
 domain of factotum?


I hope so.


Re: [9fans] replace p9sk1 with something better(9front)

2015-07-02 Thread lucio
 I think that I'd avoid putting the negotiation and certificate stuff (as
 such) in the kernel device.

Speaking as an amateur, I'd be tempted to investigate pushing the Plan
9 paradigm further and see how hard it would be to fragment the kernel
into asymmetric portions.  To be more specific, something of the
magnitude of TLS, or USB, ought to be constructed as a subkernel or a
super-driver, able to run on GPUs in parallel with the CPU-based
kernel.  Thinking on my feet, I'd say the important factor would be
the establishment of boundaries between modules that can only be
crossed with the right type of credentials.

How much of this is old hat to those of us who are close to academia I
can't guess, but not having seen much mention of similar concepts, I'm
curious if anything in this vein is being explored at all (I'm sure
something that would appeal to me is, there are close to an infinite
number of monkeys out there typing on pretty close to an infinite
number of keyboards and an even more infinite number of CPUs).

Lucio.




Re: [9fans] replace p9sk1 with something better(9front)

2015-07-02 Thread Skip Tavakkolian
isn't it settled that keeping of secrets and exchange thereof are the
domain of factotum?


On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 6:14 AM, Charles Forsyth charles.fors...@gmail.com
wrote:

 I hadn't looked at the bounties page recently. It includes

 improve the tls(3) device $10 - The TLS device implements the record
 layer protocols of Transport Layer Security version 1.0 and Secure Sockets
 Layer version 3.0. It does not implement the handshake protocols, which are
 responsible for mutual authentication and key exchange. Wanted: more
 ciphers, support for user certificates, support for certificate
 verification. ECDSA! ECDHE!

 I think that I'd avoid putting the negotiation and certificate stuff (as
 such) in the kernel device.


 On 2 July 2015 at 13:57, Charles Forsyth charles.fors...@gmail.com
 wrote:


 On 2 July 2015 at 13:30, Anthony Sorace a...@9srv.net wrote:

 The p9sk1 *model* is great, and it'd be a real shame to drop it.


 There always seems to be trouble setting it up, which suggests that the
 documentation people typically first see might need revising
 (or better pointers if it exists but people don't find it).





Re: [9fans] replace p9sk1 with something better(9front)

2015-07-02 Thread cinap_lenrek
 Wanted: more
 ciphers, support for user certificates, support for certificate
 verification. ECDSA! ECDHE!

client certs, client side DHE and ECDHE already done in 9front, just
take it :)

--
cinap