Hi Alex,
> > All agreed... but would you consider to add some big warnings about that
> > fact? :)
> Thats something for the release notes or readme.debian. Feel free to send a
> patch.
I do not believe the issue should mean that NRPE is so critically flawed that
it should be removed from Wheez
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-02-08 at 00:26 +0100, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> > In fact nothing is new here and security wouldn't change much with different
> > keys. The implementation ist just broken. But if you have an idea to improve
> > it, feel free to sen
Off topic but...
Hi Michael
On Fri, 2013-02-08 at 00:55 +0100, Michael Friedrich wrote:
> i've tried the idea of the ssl x509 patch in an unofficial nrpe fork.
> lives in git here, until it dies, and will never get released, so
> beware: https://git.icinga.org/?p=icinga-irpe.git;a=summary
If no
On 08.02.2013 00:31, Markus Frosch wrote:
Just my 2 cents (without any hat on):
TLS integration in NRPE was broken from the beginning and more or less
by design.
The "real" and only security feature is to configure a appropriate
allowed_hosts list, which might be enough security for internal
ne
4 matches
Mail list logo
