On 24/02/2014 11:18, Ollivier Robert wrote:
According to Joe Holden on Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:13:23AM +:
hm, I can't say I have noticed this as being a problem where I've
used it, are there any scenarios where this is a showstopper?
Non-support for auth is a concern, lack of NTPv4
On 24/02/2014 11:26, Joe Holden wrote:
On 24/02/2014 11:18, Ollivier Robert wrote:
According to Joe Holden on Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:13:23AM +:
hm, I can't say I have noticed this as being a problem where I've
used it, are there any scenarios where this is a showstopper?
Non-support for
In message 530b2dee.3030...@rewt.org.uk, Joe Holden writes:
The other point I should make here is that if you care that much about
time security you shouldn't be contacting ntp servers over 3rd party
networks anyway, at least not without some IP-level
encryption/authentication, or use a source
On 24/02/2014 13:52, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 530b2dee.3030...@rewt.org.uk, Joe Holden writes:
The other point I should make here is that if you care that much about
time security you shouldn't be contacting ntp servers over 3rd party
networks anyway, at least not without some
In message 530b666a.1000...@rewt.org.uk, Joe Holden writes:
Please check how NTP is authenticated before giving bad advice,
it's all in the RFC.
v3 or v4? It is an optional part of the spec in both cases and again
isn't required for 99% of people using ntpd as a client, which was the
entire
On 24/02/2014 15:40, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 530b666a.1000...@rewt.org.uk, Joe Holden writes:
Please check how NTP is authenticated before giving bad advice,
it's all in the RFC.
v3 or v4? It is an optional part of the spec in both cases and again
isn't required for 99% of people
