Re: md2 on current and 10.
Am 09.01.2014 02:59, schrieb Mikhail T.: On 08.01.2014 20:05, Peter Wemm wrote: The path of least resistance is to make a libmd2 port. It's the only way I can see you getting to use it on 10.0. *I* don't really care. *I* don't use md2 myself. I became aware of the problem by accident -- because one of my ports was affected (tcl-trf). But I can fix the port, no huhu. It just seems to me, FreeBSD as a project goofed by abruptly removing the functions, that have been in the base for many years. But if the src-committers don't care to ungoof it -- despite my raising awareness as much (and, perhaps, even above) as permissible by politeness -- then so be it... Mikhail, There have been license concerns raised about the MD2 algorithm, and apparently it is FreeBSD policy to not burden our users with known/surprising license restrictions. It would also appear that this license policy would overrule compatibility with an old algorithm (MD2). You have _not_ responded to these license concerns, but _only_ argued with compatibility, and along the lines of user/maintainer convenience. The MD2 functionality can be offered through a port, where it is much easier to handle legal concerns. It may be inconvenient to a maintainer, and you may be disappointed or frustrated about a lack of a proper discontinual phase, but I see a port as the _only_ viable option. Making a port use libmd2, or OpenSSL-from-ports-built-with-MD2 should (1) satisfy compatibility and (2) base system licensing requirements, all at the same time. What is the reason why you don't find it acceptable to offer an option to build your affected tcl-trf port against a ports OpenSSL? Is there a technical concern beyond adding proper _DEPENDS lines? Is there a social concern beyond the maintainer's one-time work? Do we have a release note entry for MD2 removal? (I haven't checked.) If not, can we add it before 10.0-RELEASE given there is a -RC5 now? Cheers, Matthias ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: md2 on current and 10.
On 08.01.2014 02:54, Peter Wemm wrote: Could we, please, have MD2 resurrected before 10.0 is officially out? Preferably in both -lmd and -lcrypto, but certainly in the former. Thank you! Yours, The time to bring this up was before the freeze for 10.0, a good 6+ months ago. It is way too late now. First of all, Peter, are you talking as a core-member, or expressing personal opinion? In any case, I'd say it is not entirely fair to blame me for reporting a problem late -- without any apologies about causing it in the first place... But is it really too late to add such a small piece back to where it was? I'm not talking about resurrecting uucp here... Meanwhile, any existing MD2-using application will simply break after upgrade -- does that not bother anyone? If the code was removed after 19 years in the tree, is 6 months really too late to resurrect it? However.. the code in libmd had had a non-commercial use restriction.. Even if it wasn't too late, that code won't be back. That restriction was not (enough of) a problem for 20 years (since 1994) -- and still is not in 9.x and 8.x. But, Ok... Your best bet is to create a crypto/libmd2 port. Start with the code from openssl. Adding such a port increases the number of hoops for any user to jump through -- and the maintenance costs. Whereas the cost of simply adjusting the base OpenSSL's configuration to include MD2 functionality is virtually zero -- a single additional file file will be back (md2.h), and no new libraries... OpenSSL port offers MD2 as an option -- surely the base version can have that same option flipped on without breaking anything. Yours, -mi ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: md2 on current and 10.
On 1/8/14, 7:00 AM, Mikhail T wrote: On 08.01.2014 02:54, Peter Wemm wrote: Could we, please, have MD2 resurrected before 10.0 is officially out? Preferably in both -lmd and -lcrypto, but certainly in the former. Thank you! Yours, The time to bring this up was before the freeze for 10.0, a good 6+ months ago. It is way too late now. First of all, Peter, are you talking as a core-member, or expressing personal opinion? In any case, I'd say it is not entirely fair to blame me for reporting a problem late -- without any apologies about causing it in the first place... But is it really too late to add such a small piece back to where it was? I'm not talking about resurrecting uucp here... Meanwhile, any existing MD2-using application will simply break after upgrade -- does that not bother anyone? If the code was removed after 19 years in the tree, is 6 months really too late to resurrect it? Personal unless stated otherwise. By too late I mean the cutoff has already passed for the final RC and there won't be more unless there's an absolute emergency. As for timeliness of the request, here's the original commit: r234746 | obrien | 2012-04-27 19:48:51 -0700 (Fri, 27 Apr 2012) | 10 lines Remove the RFC 1319 MD2 Message-Digest Algorithm routines from libmd. 1. The licensing terms for the MD2 routines from RFC is not under a BSD-like license. Instead it is only granted for non-commercial Internet Privacy-Enhanced Mail. 2. MD2 is quite deprecated as it is no longer considered a cryptographically strong algorithm. Discussed with: so (cperciva), core The original feature cutoff schedules were: head/ slush: August 24, 2013 head/ freeze: September 7, 2013 10.0 is already late. The original plan would have had 10.0 released in November. That's before the first email in this thread - December. You can always ask the release engineers for an exception, but given that the release is already overdue I'd bet money you won't get a positive reception to a request to a delay for md2. You could ask obrien to revert his commit for head but I'd bet you won't get a positive response there. However.. the code in libmd had had a non-commercial use restriction.. Even if it wasn't too late, that code won't be back. That restriction was not (enough of) a problem for 20 years (since 1994) -- and still is not in 9.x and 8.x. But, Ok... Your best bet is to create a crypto/libmd2 port. Start with the code from openssl. Adding such a port increases the number of hoops for any user to jump through -- and the maintenance costs. Whereas the cost of simply adjusting the base OpenSSL's configuration to include MD2 functionality is virtually zero -- a single additional file file will be back (md2.h), and no new libraries... The path of least resistance is to make a libmd2 port. It's the only way I can see you getting to use it on 10.0. -- Peter Wemm - pe...@wemm.org; pe...@freebsd.org; pe...@yahoo-inc.com; KI6FJV UTF-8: for when a ' just won\342\200\231t do. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: md2 on current and 10.
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 05:05:51PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: On 1/8/14, 7:00 AM, Mikhail T wrote: On 08.01.2014 02:54, Peter Wemm wrote: Could we, please, have MD2 resurrected before 10.0 is officially out? Preferably in both -lmd and -lcrypto, but certainly in the former. Thank you! Yours, The time to bring this up was before the freeze for 10.0, a good 6+ months ago. It is way too late now. First of all, Peter, are you talking as a core-member, or expressing personal opinion? In any case, I'd say it is not entirely fair to blame me for reporting a problem late -- without any apologies about causing it in the first place... But is it really too late to add such a small piece back to where it was? I'm not talking about resurrecting uucp here... Meanwhile, any existing MD2-using application will simply break after upgrade -- does that not bother anyone? If the code was removed after 19 years in the tree, is 6 months really too late to resurrect it? Personal unless stated otherwise. By too late I mean the cutoff has already passed for the final RC and there won't be more unless there's an absolute emergency. As for timeliness of the request, here's the original commit: r234746 | obrien | 2012-04-27 19:48:51 -0700 (Fri, 27 Apr 2012) | 10 lines Remove the RFC 1319 MD2 Message-Digest Algorithm routines from libmd. 1. The licensing terms for the MD2 routines from RFC is not under a BSD-like license. Instead it is only granted for non-commercial Internet Privacy-Enhanced Mail. 2. MD2 is quite deprecated as it is no longer considered a cryptographically strong algorithm. Discussed with: so (cperciva), core The original feature cutoff schedules were: head/ slush: August 24, 2013 head/ freeze: September 7, 2013 10.0 is already late. The original plan would have had 10.0 released in November. That's before the first email in this thread - December. You can always ask the release engineers for an exception, but given that the release is already overdue I'd bet money you won't get a positive reception to a request to a delay for md2. This is correct. You could ask obrien to revert his commit for head but I'd bet you won't get a positive response there. However.. the code in libmd had had a non-commercial use restriction.. Even if it wasn't too late, that code won't be back. That restriction was not (enough of) a problem for 20 years (since 1994) -- and still is not in 9.x and 8.x. But, Ok... Your best bet is to create a crypto/libmd2 port. Start with the code from openssl. Adding such a port increases the number of hoops for any user to jump through -- and the maintenance costs. Whereas the cost of simply adjusting the base OpenSSL's configuration to include MD2 functionality is virtually zero -- a single additional file file will be back (md2.h), and no new libraries... The path of least resistance is to make a libmd2 port. It's the only way I can see you getting to use it on 10.0. This is also correct. Glen pgpUsPiVZDrei.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: md2 on current and 10.
On 08.01.2014 20:05, Peter Wemm wrote: The path of least resistance is to make a libmd2 port. It's the only way I can see you getting to use it on 10.0. *I* don't really care. *I* don't use md2 myself. I became aware of the problem by accident -- because one of my ports was affected (tcl-trf). But I can fix the port, no huhu. It just seems to me, FreeBSD as a project goofed by abruptly removing the functions, that have been in the base for many years. But if the src-committers don't care to ungoof it -- despite my raising awareness as much (and, perhaps, even above) as permissible by politeness -- then so be it... Yours, -mi ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: md2 on current and 10.
On 27.12.2013 10:50, Ulrich Spörlein wrote: In other words, /if you like your digest algorithm, you can keep it/. Yours, Seconded. What should people use if some of their old data is using MD2 for verification? How can they now easily check that their data (from tape or whatever) still matches the fingerprint? Was it too naive of Ulrich and myself to expect the seconded and unopposed motion to be acted upon? Or, at least, put to a vote? -mi ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: md2 on current and 10.
On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Mikhail T mi+apa...@aldan.algebra.com wrote: On 20.12.2013 13:38, olli hauer wrote: md2 was deprecated in 2009 by the openssl project http://cvs.openssl.org/chngview?cn=18381 CVE-2009-2409 As fas as I know some Linux based projects have removed md2 from openssl-0.9.x in 2009. [..] Could we, please, have MD2 resurrected before 10.0 is officially out? Preferably in both -lmd and -lcrypto, but certainly in the former. Thank you! Yours, The time to bring this up was before the freeze for 10.0, a good 6+ months ago. It is way too late now. However.. the code in libmd had had a non-commercial use restriction.. Even if it wasn't too late, that code won't be back. Your best bet is to create a crypto/libmd2 port. Start with the code from openssl. -- Peter Wemm - pe...@wemm.org; pe...@freebsd.org; pe...@yahoo-inc.com; KI6FJV ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: md2 on current and 10.
On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 16:46:42 -0500, Mikhail T. wrote: Thinking more about the MD2, I'd say, FreeBSD should not have removed the algorithm. Although no longer deemed sufficiently secure, it is still in use and people using it on FreeBSD-8.x and 9.x today may wish to continue doing so after upgrading to 10.x In the old Mechanism vs. Policy debate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_mechanism_and_policy we erred on the side of policy and it does not seem right... Whether or not to use MD2 is (or should be) left up to the users of FreeBSD. Even if OpenSSL no longer provides it, libmd should continue to. In other words, /if you like your digest algorithm, you can keep it/. Yours, Seconded. What should people use if some of their old data is using MD2 for verification? How can they now easily check that their data (from tape or whatever) still matches the fingerprint? Cheers, Uli ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: md2 on current and 10.
On 20.12.2013 13:38, olli hauer wrote: md2 was deprecated in 2009 by the openssl project http://cvs.openssl.org/chngview?cn=18381 CVE-2009-2409 As fas as I know some Linux based projects have removed md2 from openssl-0.9.x in 2009. So, when are we removing sum(1) and cksum(1) -- implementation of the even weaker hashing? Should we do with rsh(1), what Linux have done: % rsh -v OpenSSH_5.9p1 Debian-5ubuntu1.1, OpenSSL 1.0.1 14 Mar 2012 usage: ssh [-1246AaCfgKkMNnqsTtVvXxYy] [-b bind_address] [-c cipher_spec] [-D [bind_address:]port] [-e escape_char] [-F configfile] [-I pkcs11] [-i identity_file] [-L [bind_address:]port:host:hostport] [-l login_name] [-m mac_spec] [-O ctl_cmd] [-o option] [-p port] [-R [bind_address:]port:host:hostport] [-S ctl_path] [-W host:port] [-w local_tun[:remote_tun]] [user@]hostname [command] How about rexec/rcmd(3), gets(3), and tmpfile(3)? OpenSSL may have deprecated md2 (though it remains an option even there, just off by default), but FreeBSD did not have to -- our libmd could've continued to offer the functionality, just as libz, for yet another example, continues to offer its own checksum implementation. If, for some reason, we feel we must warn the user, we could do that when installing ports -- as we already warn about the network-listening and other potentially dangerous functions. Could we, please, have MD2 resurrected before 10.0 is officially out? Preferably in both -lmd and -lcrypto, but certainly in the former. Thank you! Yours, -mi ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: md2 on current and 10.
On 2013-12-20 01:44, Mikhail T. wrote: It would appear, neither md2.h nor openssl/md2.h are any longer available on FreeBSD current and 10.x This breaks the devel/tcl-trf port, which I maintain... Could someone, please, comment? Should I patch-up the port to disable the functionality? Or?.. Thank you! -mi Hm the config script tests for md2 and sha1 ... What happens if md2 support is removed from the code? Btw. This issue already exists for a longer time if openssl from ports is in use. http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revisionrevision=252255 -- Regards, olli ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: md2 on current and 10.
On 2013-12-20 19:04, Mikhail T. wrote: On 20.12.2013 12:52, olli hauer wrote: Hm the config script tests for md2 and sha1 ... What happens if md2 support is removed from the code? Yes, the md2 can be removed from the set of digests made available by the port -- that's not a problem. What I wanted to know, was why? Maybe, the header files should've been replaced with ones containing an #error (like malloc.h was)... Oh well... -mi md2 was deprecated in 2009 by the openssl project http://cvs.openssl.org/chngview?cn=18381 CVE-2009-2409 As fas as I know some Linux based projects have removed md2 from openssl-0.9.x in 2009. I have no answer why FreeBSD 8/9 has the old openssl-0.9.8y and md2 support was not removed. -- olli ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: md2 on current and 10.
On 20.12.2013 12:52, olli hauer wrote: Hm the config script tests for md2 and sha1 ... What happens if md2 support is removed from the code? Yes, the md2 can be removed from the set of digests made available by the port -- that's not a problem. What I wanted to know, was why? Maybe, the header files should've been replaced with ones containing an #error (like malloc.h was)... Oh well... -mi ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: md2 on current and 10.
Thinking more about the MD2, I'd say, FreeBSD should not have removed the algorithm. Although no longer deemed sufficiently secure, it is still in use and people using it on FreeBSD-8.x and 9.x today may wish to continue doing so after upgrading to 10.x In the old Mechanism vs. Policy debate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_mechanism_and_policy we erred on the side of policy and it does not seem right... Whether or not to use MD2 is (or should be) left up to the users of FreeBSD. Even if OpenSSL no longer provides it, libmd should continue to. In other words, /if you like your digest algorithm, you can keep it/. Yours, -mi ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
md2 on current and 10.
It would appear, neither md2.h nor openssl/md2.h are any longer available on FreeBSD current and 10.x This breaks the devel/tcl-trf port, which I maintain... Could someone, please, comment? Should I patch-up the port to disable the functionality? Or?.. Thank you! -mi ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
