Hi Laurent,
Please see the responses inline.
Thanks,
Sorabh
From: Laurent Goujon <laur...@dremio.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 11:52 AM
To: dev
Subject: Re: Drill SASL Forward Compatibility
I have a parallel scenario:
- Scenario 1:
1) A handshak
ce no data is compromised.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Sorabh
>
>
> From: Parth Chandra <par...@apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 1:42:14 PM
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: Drill SASL Forward Compatibility
>
> I sort of lost tr
I have a parallel scenario:
- Scenario 1:
1) A handshake from a (1.12) client expecting authentication and encryption
is intercepted by a rogue server. The rogue server then responds first with
AUTH_REQUIRED, but authenticationMechanisms doesn't provide gssapi/kerberos
as a sasl mechanism. The
,
Sorabh
From: Parth Chandra <par...@apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 1:42:14 PM
To: dev
Subject: Re: Drill SASL Forward Compatibility
I sort of lost track of the arguments in the thread. Is my understanding
below correct ?
1) A handshake from a
I sort of lost track of the arguments in the thread. Is my understanding
below correct ?
1) A handshake from a (1.12) client expecting authentication and encryption
is intercepted by a rogue server. The server then responds with a success
message and bypasses the auth and encryption for the
eld sasl_support is set and
> not check the value alltogether. I'm not convinced you need to do some
> extra logic around UNKNOWN_SASL_SERVER which would just keep people
> confused (although it doesn't seem something you need to apply to 1.11 or
> higher)
>
>
>
> >
>
> Thanks,
> Sorabh
>
>
> From: Laurent Goujon <laur...@dremio.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 5:42 PM
> To: dev
> Cc: Arina Lelchieva; sudhe...@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Drill SASL Forward Compatibility
>
> Regarding DR
From: Laurent Goujon <laur...@dremio.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 5:42 PM
To: dev
Cc: Arina Lelchieva; sudhe...@apache.org
Subject: Re: Drill SASL Forward Compatibility
Regarding DRILL-5582 patch which broke compatibility with 1.9 version
(which is les
ll 1.10
> server, I think the fix should be made which is mentioned in first email of
> this thread.
>
> Thanks,
> Sorabh
>
>
> From: Laurent Goujon <laur...@dremio.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 9:38:13 AM
> To: dev
>
hich is mentioned in first email of
this thread.
Thanks,
Sorabh
From: Laurent Goujon <laur...@dremio.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 9:38:13 AM
To: dev
Cc: Arina Lelchieva; sudhe...@apache.org
Subject: Re: Drill SASL Forward Compatibility
See my answ
t; ________
> From: Laurent Goujon <laur...@dremio.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 5:47 PM
> To: dev
> Cc: Arina Lelchieva; sudhe...@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Drill SASL Forward Compatibility
>
> Regarding DRILL-5582, I see that fix as a breakag
>
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 5:47 PM
To: dev
Cc: Arina Lelchieva; sudhe...@apache.org
Subject: Re: Drill SASL Forward Compatibility
Regarding DRILL-5582, I see that fix as a breakage of the work to maintain
compatibility for an newer client to connect to a older version of the
serve
Regarding DRILL-5582, I see that fix as a breakage of the work to maintain
compatibility for an newer client to connect to a older version of the
server. Or put it differently: current (master) client does not connect
anymore to a server not supporting SASL (<=1.9). Note that the client could
13 matches
Mail list logo