Hi,
I did a search on marc.info on this but didn't come to a conclusion. So the
subject already says it, the MD5(3) manpage says that the EVP functions should
be used, ok. I'm hoping that using the EVP functions will give me hardware
support at these hashing functions much like AESN
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:20:05AM +1000, bytevolc...@safe-mail.net wrote:
> For md5(1) (and therefore, sha1(1), sha256(1), sha512(1)), the man page
> has this:
>
> "-q Only print the checksum (quiet mode)."
>
> Since this has the same behaviour as "cksum -
For md5(1) (and therefore, sha1(1), sha256(1), sha512(1)), the man page
has this:
"-q Only print the checksum (quiet mode)."
Since this has the same behaviour as "cksum -q", would it be best to
keep it in line with it:
"-q Only print the checksum (quiet mode)
from 20. December,
second machine(host1) is running 4.9 release i386 patched to latest errata.
When using SHA1 or MD5, there is packet loss on the link and i see netstat
"packets that failed verification received" counter increasing on host1.
There are no packet verification errors o
On 2010-11-08, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Do you know if Quagga in OpenBSD 4.8 implements the tcp-md5
> signature (for BGP) ? Looks like it does not work.
It does not. (I don't think BIRD does either).
Le Mon, 8 Nov 2010 15:14:49 +0100,
David Coppa a icrit :
> > Do you know if Quagga in OpenBSD 4.8 implements the tcp-md5
> > signature (for BGP) ? Looks like it does not work.
>
> Why using quagga when you have bgpd (which is in the tree and supports
> md5 signatures as
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Patrick Lamaiziere
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Do you know if Quagga in OpenBSD 4.8 implements the tcp-md5
> signature (for BGP) ? Looks like it does not work.
Why using quagga when you have bgpd (which is in the tree and supports
md5 signatures as well)?
Hello,
Do you know if Quagga in OpenBSD 4.8 implements the tcp-md5
signature (for BGP) ? Looks like it does not work.
Thanks, regards.
nasis wrote:
I had such a problem with under-volted RAM. The RAM (DDR2) needed to be
manually set to 2.0 or 2.1 Volts (in BIOS).
on 06/30/2010 11:58 PM Claudiu Pruna wrote the following:
Hi there,
I have a question if I have one box running OpenBSD 4.7 and everytime I
do md5 on one
On 2010-07-01, Claudiu Pruna wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 16:21 -0600, Alexander Hall wrote:
>> On 06/30/10 14:58, Claudiu Pruna wrote:
>> >Hi there,
>> >
>> >I have a question if I have one box running OpenBSD 4.7 and everytime I
>> > do md
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 14:14 +0300, Ozgur Kazancci wrote:
> Sounds like a bad ram module to me.
>
> A mem test would be good;
>
> http://www.memtest.org/
> or
> http://www.memtest86.com/
>
> Get the pre-compiled bootable ISO from there and test your RAM modules.
>
> If errors are found, replace
have a question if I have one box running OpenBSD 4.7 and everytime I
> > do md5 on one file I get different results, who is more succeptible to
> > be broken ? cpu ? ram ? or mb. ?
> >
> > Thanks for your thoughts.
> >
> >
> >
>
the computer is an P
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 16:21 -0600, Alexander Hall wrote:
> On 06/30/10 14:58, Claudiu Pruna wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > I have a question if I have one box running OpenBSD 4.7 and everytime I
> > do md5 on one file I get different results, who is more succept
Check your RAM's specs as to voltage ...
on 06/30/2010 11:58 PM Claudiu Pruna wrote the following:
> Hi there,
>
> I have a question if I have one box running OpenBSD 4.7 and everytime I
> do md5 on one file I get different results, who is more succeptible to
> b
I had such a problem with under-volted RAM. The RAM (DDR2) needed to be
manually set to 2.0 or 2.1 Volts (in BIOS).
on 06/30/2010 11:58 PM Claudiu Pruna wrote the following:
> Hi there,
>
> I have a question if I have one box running OpenBSD 4.7 and everytime I
> do md5 o
On 06/30/10 14:58, Claudiu Pruna wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I have a question if I have one box running OpenBSD 4.7 and everytime I
> do md5 on one file I get different results, who is more succeptible to
> be broken ? cpu ? ram ? or mb. ?
>
> Thanks for your thought
Hi there,
I have a question if I have one box running OpenBSD 4.7 and everytime I
do md5 on one file I get different results, who is more succeptible to
be broken ? cpu ? ram ? or mb. ?
Thanks for your thoughts.
--
Claudiu Pruna
t;> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I am running OpenBSD 4.7-current, and it seems I have some problems to
>>>> negociate tcp md5 bgp session... They doesn't seems at all to wake up, I
>> have
>>>> connection timeout... or what ever.
>>>
>>&g
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 05:15:21PM +0200, Xavier Beaudouin wrote:
> Hi Stuart,
>
> Le 15 mai 2010 ` 13:47, Stuart Henderson a icrit :
>
> > On 2010-05-15, Xavier Beaudouin wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I am running OpenBSD 4.7-current, and it seems I
Hi Stuart,
Le 15 mai 2010 ` 13:47, Stuart Henderson a icrit :
> On 2010-05-15, Xavier Beaudouin wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am running OpenBSD 4.7-current, and it seems I have some problems to
>> negociate tcp md5 bgp session... They doesn't seems at all to wake
On 2010-05-15, Xavier Beaudouin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am running OpenBSD 4.7-current, and it seems I have some problems to
> negociate tcp md5 bgp session... They doesn't seems at all to wake up, I have
> connection timeout... or what ever.
Please show ipsecctl -sa and netsta
Hello,
I am running OpenBSD 4.7-current, and it seems I have some problems to
negociate tcp md5 bgp session... They doesn't seems at all to wake up, I have
connection timeout... or what ever.
dmesg :
OpenBSD 4.7-current (GENERIC.MP) #560: Wed Apr 28 11:55:01 MDT 2010
dera...
a bit longer answer: smtpd is interfaced to bsdauth (see
authenticate(3)). so if you want you can implement authentication
method, just like I did to authenticate smtpd client to pop3 server.
authenticate(3) makes my head spin, it would be awesome if you shared
how you did that! Has anybody els
no need to do this, you can setup startls and ssmtp within a
minute following the instruction in man starttls.
Gilles
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 01:40:34PM +1100, Aaron Mason wrote:
> If you really want to secure the transmission, you could always
> connect to it via stunnel or something similar.
>
If you really want to secure the transmission, you could always
connect to it via stunnel or something similar.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:48 AM, Fernando Quintero
wrote:
> uhmm ok,
> I got it, smtpd is interfaced to bsdauth (thx gregory) so, I will
> search in that way, really I'm just trying thi
uhmm ok,
I got it, smtpd is interfaced to bsdauth (thx gregory) so, I will
search in that way, really I'm just trying things and I'm verifying
the simplicity of the configuration, I want to write a HowTo
(spanish), about OpenSMTPD + auth +pop3s + imaps + webmail, etc ...
Thanks a lot.
On Mon, Oct
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 02:01:01AM -0500, Fernando Quintero wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> first, thx to gilles for this great software,
>
jacekm@ did a lot of work on it too ;-)
> I'm testing smtpd with TLS and SSL an it works ok, I noticed that the
> AUTH command uses PLAIN LOGIN.
>
> The question is:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:01:01 -0500
Fernando Quintero wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> first, thx to gilles for this great software,
> I'm testing smtpd with TLS and SSL an it works ok, I noticed that the
> AUTH command uses PLAIN LOGIN.
>
> The question is: smtpd supports another thing different to PLAIN L
Hi all,
first, thx to gilles for this great software,
I'm testing smtpd with TLS and SSL an it works ok, I noticed that the
AUTH command uses PLAIN LOGIN.
The question is: smtpd supports another thing different to PLAIN LOGIN
for AUTH?, is possible integrate it to SASL ?
Thanks in advanced.
--
>> installed. B So I'm looking for a cleaner, standard method. B Thanks.
>
> encrypt(1) is in base and covers MD5/Blowfish/DES. or there's htpasswd,
> handling SHA/apache modified MD5/Blowfish/DES. if you need other hashes,
> dovecotpw (from the dovecot package) knows of
r, standard method. Thanks.
encrypt(1) is in base and covers MD5/Blowfish/DES. or there's htpasswd,
handling SHA/apache modified MD5/Blowfish/DES. if you need other hashes,
dovecotpw (from the dovecot package) knows of many more.
man crypt
2009/2/28 Juan Miscaro :
> What is the standard way of generating hashes (for me it's for
> passwords) in OpenBSD? B I once used userdbpw but it's package
> (courier-authlib-userdb) conflicts with another package I have
> installed. B So I'm looking for a cleaner, standard method. B Than
What is the standard way of generating hashes (for me it's for
passwords) in OpenBSD? I once used userdbpw but it's package
(courier-authlib-userdb) conflicts with another package I have
installed. So I'm looking for a cleaner, standard method. Thanks.
--
jm
My mistake was not to include the files. The confusing thing was that
_BOTH_ md5 files had the same size and the one from uni-erlangen.de
was one day delay like it should be (aprox) . I include here the file
content and maybe someone can pinpoint more accurately:
MD5 - ftp.openbsd.org
Nick Holland wrote:
Mihai Popescu B.S. wrote:
Hello,
I got the install44.iso and MD5 from snapshots from
openbsd.informatik.uni-erlangen.de and the MD5 file failed the test.
I got the MD5 from ftp.openbsd.org and run it against the
install44.iso from openbsd.informatik[...] and it reports OK
On 11/2/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/2/08, Lars Noodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Are you using anything other than /bin/md5 ?
>
> You mean, apart from /local/bin/md5 in some OSes?
Lars, forgive me if I offended you by the abo
Mihai Popescu B.S. wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I got the install44.iso and MD5 from snapshots from
> openbsd.informatik.uni-erlangen.de and the MD5 file failed the test.
>
> I got the MD5 from ftp.openbsd.org and run it against the
> install44.iso from openbsd.informatik[.
I used md5 -c MD5 to check.
Could someone give me a hint with this checksum file, should I rely on
it or not anymore ?
Thanks
On 11/2/08, Lars Noodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you using anything other than /bin/md5 ?
You mean, apart from /local/bin/md5 in some OSes?
Actually, the command about which I asked was md5sum -c md5. I wasn't
able to recollect it due to my health conditions and age, ca
soko.tica wrote:
> If I'm not asking too much, what command did you use to compare MD5s?
Are you using anything other than /bin/md5 ?
On 11/1/08, Mihai Popescu B.S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I got the install44.iso and MD5 from snapshots from
> openbsd.informatik.uni-erlangen.de and the MD5 file failed the test.
I've got the similar problem with the first 4.4 .iso I downloaded from
openb
Hello,
I got the install44.iso and MD5 from snapshots from
openbsd.informatik.uni-erlangen.de and the MD5 file failed the test.
I got the MD5 from ftp.openbsd.org and run it against the
install44.iso from openbsd.informatik[...] and it reports OK.
Comparing the two MD5 files, there are major
Joe Gidi wrote:
I've downloaded the 9/24/08 i386 install.iso from both rt.fm and
ftp3.usa.openbsd.org and got bad MD5s on both files.
MD5 from both downloads was:
53238ca6a3212db65dadd9bef1ef1f3d
while the ftp MD5 file says it should be:
f87b839db833380f41f02bd7fffb2d27
Haven't c
Steve Shockley escreveu:
> On 9/29/2008 12:36 PM, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote:
>> tcpdump on your if and see if you're getting bad tcp checksum's. Most
>> likely it's a problem with you network if, or switch, or router,
>> corrupting packets.
>
> If you're used to seeing bad TCP checksums in tcpdump
On 9/29/2008 12:36 PM, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote:
tcpdump on your if and see if you're getting bad tcp checksum's. Most
likely it's a problem with you network if, or switch, or router,
corrupting packets.
If you're used to seeing bad TCP checksums in tcpdump, you probably have
a NIC that does
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Giancarlo Razzolini
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Gidi escreveu:
>> I've downloaded the 9/24/08 i386 install.iso from both rt.fm and
>> ftp3.usa.openbsd.org and got bad MD5s on both files.
>>
>> MD5 from both downloads wa
Joe Gidi escreveu:
> I've downloaded the 9/24/08 i386 install.iso from both rt.fm and
> ftp3.usa.openbsd.org and got bad MD5s on both files.
>
> MD5 from both downloads was:
> 53238ca6a3212db65dadd9bef1ef1f3d
>
> while the ftp MD5 file says it should be:
> f87
I've downloaded the 9/24/08 i386 install.iso from both rt.fm and
ftp3.usa.openbsd.org and got bad MD5s on both files.
MD5 from both downloads was:
53238ca6a3212db65dadd9bef1ef1f3d
while the ftp MD5 file says it should be:
f87b839db833380f41f02bd7fffb2d27
Haven't checked the master f
Hi all,
it seems that the actual MD5 checksum of
snapshots/i386/install44.iso differs from
the one specified in snapshots/i386/MD5:
< MD5 (install44.iso) = 519daedda756537d5efbe8ad5fd4eb23
> MD5 (install44.iso) = f87b839db833380f41f02bd7fffb2d27
(My tiny little script that downloads sna
2008, at 11:57 PM, Stephen Day wrote:
On 19/6/2008, "Ben Calvert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 19, 2008, at 12:24 PM, Stephen Day wrote:
Hello
The MD5's for the X packages seem to be missing from the
distribution
directories for 4.3 and snapshots.
google is yo
Hello
The MD5's for the X packages seem to be missing from the distribution
directories for 4.3 and snapshots.
$ wget ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/i386/MD5
--21:15:35-- ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/i386/MD5
=> `MD5'
Resolving ft
Hi,
clean install of 4.3
Since then I am having this problem a number of times:
[1]29729 segmentation fault fetchmail
spree(p9)| sudo pkg_delete fetchmail
Problem: md5 doesn't match for /usr/local/bin/fetchmail
NOT deleting: /usr/local/bin/fetchmail
fetchmail-6.3.8p0: complete
Clean s
> Just for checking:
> md5sum cd42.iso
> 7d4ba197d25088a4ad487f2830028c8d cd42.iso
>
> 2) The numbers from MD5 official file:
> MD5 (install42.iso) = b3a80c9010716ebc997571a1609cf334
>
> Just for checking:
> MD5 (cd42.iso) = 7d4ba197d25088a4ad487f2830028c8d
>
>
Todd C. Miller wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
so spake =?ISO-8859-2?B?UHJ6ZW15c7NhdyBQYXdls2N6eWs=?= (pp):
1) MD5s for downloaded files
md5sum install42.iso
03dc43a1d18d3003843a1f13b3861917 install42.iso
03dc43a1d18d3003843a1f13b3861917 is correct. The MD5 fi
gt;
> Just for checking:
> md5sum cd42.iso
> 7d4ba197d25088a4ad487f2830028c8d cd42.iso
>
> 2) The numbers from MD5 official file:
> MD5 (install42.iso) = b3a80c9010716ebc997571a1609cf334
>
> Just for checking:
> MD5 (cd42.iso) = 7d4ba197d25088a4ad487
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
so spake =?ISO-8859-2?B?UHJ6ZW15c7NhdyBQYXdls2N6eWs=?= (pp):
> 1) MD5s for downloaded files
> md5sum install42.iso
> 03dc43a1d18d3003843a1f13b3861917 install42.iso
03dc43a1d18d3003843a1f13b3861917 is correct. The MD5 file has been
update
gt;
> Just for checking:
> md5sum cd42.iso
> 7d4ba197d25088a4ad487f2830028c8d cd42.iso
>
> 2) The numbers from MD5 official file:
> MD5 (install42.iso) = b3a80c9010716ebc997571a1609cf334
>
> Just for checking:
> MD5 (cd42.iso) = 7d4ba197d25088a4ad487f2830028c8d
>
>
Hi,
I dloaded the file from two different servers.
Here's what I got running md5sum:
1) MD5s for downloaded files
md5sum install42.iso
03dc43a1d18d3003843a1f13b3861917 install42.iso
Just for checking:
md5sum cd42.iso
7d4ba197d25088a4ad487f2830028c8d cd42.iso
2) The numbers from MD5 off
Adriaan wrote:
> A md5 -c MD5 fails for "install42.iso"
Thats' an experimental feature, not necessarily kept in sync
with the rest of the build process at the moment, and thus,
the MD5 files may very well not match.
Nick.
A md5 -c MD5 fails for "install42.iso"
$ md5 -c MD5
[snip](MD5) comp42.tgz: OK
(MD5) etc42.tgz: OK
(MD5) floppy42.fs: OK
md5: cannot open game42.tgz: No such file or directory
(MD5) game42.tgz: FAILED
(MD5) install42.iso: FAILED
(MD5) man42.tgz: OK
(MD5) misc42.tgz: OK
[snip]
$ grep i
2007/5/8, Alvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Can someone verify the different in MD5 checksum?
No, I get the same files.
Best
Martin
Downloaded from ftp.kaist.ac.kr at this date and time:
Start Time 05/03/07 11:36:31
End Time 05/03/07 12:02:44
Can someone verify the different in MD5 checksum?
Thank you.
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Stuart Henderson wrote:
MD5 is built as part of the main OS release (/usr/src/etc/Makefile);
X is built separately.
I know but appending the information to the existing files would
be great. Or even with separate files as Matthew suggested.
Another possibility is to have
env MACHINE=${MACHINE} ksh ./maketars ${OSrev} ${OSREV} && \
(env MACHINE=${MACHINE} ksh ./checkflist ${OSREV} || true)
+ -cd ${RELEASEDIR} && md5 x*.tgz > MD5.XF4
+ -cd ${RELEASEDIR} && cksum x*.tgz > CKSUM.XF4
install: install-xc
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 02:55:25PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> MD5 is built as part of the main OS release (/usr/src/etc/Makefile);
> X is built separately.
What about a patch like this? (Just a proof of concept; completely
untested.)
Index: Ma
answered yet in the FAQ, I'am suggesting that.
>
> MD5 is built as part of the main OS release (/usr/src/etc/Makefile);
> X is built separately.
---
Ben Calvert
Flying Walrus Communications
On 2007/03/02 11:42, Andris wrote:
> AFAIK, it isn't answered yet in the FAQ, I'am suggesting that.
MD5 is built as part of the main OS release (/usr/src/etc/Makefile);
X is built separately.
AFAIK, it isn't answered yet in the FAQ, I'am suggesting that.
On 3/2/07, Antti Harri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Andris wrote:
> IMHO, this should be answered in the FAQ.
>
> On 3/2/07, Antti Harri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What&#x
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Andris wrote:
> IMHO, this should be answered in the FAQ.
>
> On 3/2/07, Antti Harri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What's the reason for not providing MD5 sums
>> of X*.tgz sets in the MD5-file of release directories?
Hi,
I guess my googling
IMHO, this should be answered in the FAQ.
On 3/2/07, Antti Harri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
What's the reason for not providing MD5 sums
of X*.tgz sets in the MD5-file of release directories?
I found only one thread [1] regarding this question
from the archives and it didn&
Hello,
What's the reason for not providing MD5 sums
of X*.tgz sets in the MD5-file of release directories?
I found only one thread [1] regarding this question
from the archives and it didn't answer it
really.
I want to be able to see if the file has been
transferred correctly and I
Hi!
I've written library for SASL Digest-MD5 authentication (on client side
yet) for my project. If you want you can use it freely in your projects.
It lacks auth-int and auth-conf but still very functional for most
cases. Source code is BSD licensed.
http://www.bsdua.org/files/dige
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Gregory Edigarov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> It would be greatly appreciated if somebody can make an md5 checksum of the
> generic kernel.
> Need to check that as my OpenBSD 4.0 install hangs while booting at the very
> early stage.
The kernel embeds information
> Hello,
>
> It would be greatly appreciated if somebody can make an md5 checksum of
> the generic kernel.
MD5 (/bsd) = e8f67a2fd90f98d5b4edee9fe837c2fd
MD5 (/bsd.mp) = 63906960ed483599175af5c21bbcffe7
MD5 (/bsd.rd) = 9b39a3f3d938fb906f2bf59bcface97f
Gregory Edigarov wrote:
It would be greatly appreciated if somebody can make an md5 checksum
of the generic kernel.
Need to check that as my OpenBSD 4.0 install hangs while booting at
the very early stage.
# this is for i386 because you said old PC
MD5 (bsd
Hello,
It would be greatly appreciated if somebody can make an md5 checksum of
the generic kernel.
Need to check that as my OpenBSD 4.0 install hangs while booting at the
very early stage.
I was trying to install my openbsd on a reletively old pc, all went just
fine. I.e. I've boot fr
Hi.
[ OpenBSD/i386-current as of a couple of days ago ]
Is there a good reason why "md5 -c" should say "FAILED" when the digest in
the checklist file and the digest calculated by md5 differ only in letter
case? I can&
Sorry false alarm :/ After third time everything is ok.
--
best regards
q#
I didn't upgraded my -current system to latest -current because of errors
below. I've downloaded today those files two times, with same result.
`md5 -ci' and `cksum -c' have errors on the same files. `gzip -vt *.tgz'
shows that archives are not damaged.
$ md5 -c MD5
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 14:04:28 +0200 (CEST)
Moritz Kiese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Philip Guenther wrote:
>
> > On 7/4/06, Chet Uber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ...
> >> The reason I had said anything is
> >> that when I d
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Philip Guenther wrote:
On 7/4/06, Chet Uber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
The reason I had said anything is
that when I do forensic work I used to just do MD5's of files, but it
has gotten called to task in court so we now use both MD5 and SHA1
hashes as it is
On 7/4/06, Chet Uber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
The reason I had said anything is
that when I do forensic work I used to just do MD5's of files, but it
has gotten called to task in court so we now use both MD5 and SHA1
hashes as it is NP-complete to find a collision in both of t
1. No, but you can certainly find the numerous citations on why it
is weak hash.
I know why it is a weak hash, I was not implying it was strong but it
is still useful for many applications that still rely on it, for some
protocols that use mixed hashes [md5/sha, ...]. Not to mention that a
use
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 06:18:53 -0400
Chet Uber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jul 4, 2006, at 3:00 AM, Gilles Chehade wrote:
>
> > Chet Uber wrote:
> >> Theo,
> >>
> >> Also the last I checked obsd still supports MD5
> >>
> >> CU
On Jul 4, 2006, at 3:00 AM, Gilles Chehade wrote:
Chet Uber wrote:
Theo,
Also the last I checked obsd still supports MD5
CU
Can you please explain why it should not ?
Can you please find a collision for 3d16b4f76338838044b90ffae5e71cb5 ?
1. No, but you can certainly find the numerous
Chet Uber wrote:
Theo,
Also the last I checked obsd still supports MD5
CU
Can you please explain why it should not ?
Can you please find a collision for 3d16b4f76338838044b90ffae5e71cb5 ?
Theo,
Also the last I checked obsd still supports MD5
CU
Chet Uber
President and Principal Scientist
SecurityPosture, Inc.
3718 N 113th Plaza, Omaha, NE 68164
vox +1 (402) 505-9684 | fax +1 (402) 932-2130 | cell (402) 813-3211
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.securityposture.com
Magic-Number=-421802100, Vendor-Ext
> 0:a0:c9:8c:75:67 0:13:7f:8d:e5:1a 8864 31: PPPoE-Session
> code Session, version 1, type 1, id 0xf6aa, length 11
> LCP: Configure-Reject, Auth-Prot CHAP/MD5, Vendor-Ext
> 0:13:7f:8d:e5:1a 0:a0:c9:8c:75:67 8864 60: PPPoE-Session
sion, version 1, type 1, id 0xf6aa, length 11
LCP: Configure-Reject, Auth-Prot CHAP/MD5, Vendor-Ext
0:13:7f:8d:e5:1a 0:a0:c9:8c:75:67 8864 60: PPPoE-Session
code Session, version 1, type 1, id 0xf6aa, length 12
LCP: Configure-Ack, Magic-Number=204725418, Vendor-Ext
0:13:7f:8d:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 09:30:08 -0500
"Will H. Backman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you are looking for MD5 sums to verify the trustworthiness of the
> packages, I think the best way would be to purchase the official CDs
> from the OpenBSD store and run the MD5 too
On 11/22/05, Will H. Backman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you are looking for MD5 sums to verify the trustworthiness of the
> packages, I think the best way would be to purchase the official CDs
> from the OpenBSD store and run the MD5 tool yourself. Not the most
> usef
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
> Siju George
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 10:46 PM
> To: misc
> Subject: Re: Where to get md5 of X* install sets and packages
>
> On 11/18/05, Siju George <[EMAIL PR
On 11/18/05, Siju George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> http://ftp.jyu.fi/ftp/pub/OpenBSD/3.8/i386/MD5
>
> doesnot give md5 sums of Xbase, Xofnts, X* install sets.
>
> Where do I get them from??
>
> Also fro where do I get the md5 sums of packages??
>
Hi all,
http://ftp.jyu.fi/ftp/pub/OpenBSD/3.8/i386/MD5
doesnot give md5 sums of Xbase, Xofnts, X* install sets.
Where do I get them from??
Also fro where do I get the md5 sums of packages??
Thankyou so much
Kind Regards
siju
--
Siju Oommen George, Network Consultant. HiFX IT & M
Hi all,
Here is my latest update on this one and a work around as well. Not
great, but it work for now until this bug is fix.
To reproduce the problem, you only need to enable:
ip tcp selective-ack
on your Cisco router and as soon as you will clean the BGP session setup
with MD5 on your
Claudio Jeker wrote:
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 06:33:05PM -0400, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
Now with MD5 configure. We only add
tcp md5sig password test on bgpd side and
neighbor 66.63.12.108 password test on the Cisco side.
With bgpd master
Clear session from bgpd side, session
Claudio Jeker wrote:
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 06:33:05PM -0400, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
==
Without MD5 configure.
With bgpd master
Clear session from bgpd side, session comes back up right away.
Clear session from remote side, session comes back up with delay.
With bgpd
network. But I will
sure redo it again. It's to important to me for not be 150% sure it's
working well. So far, it just wasn't. I have well over 100+ peer
sessions, of witch ~70+ are using MD5 and I can't not have them stable.
Plus I have no choice as well to either buy bigge
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 06:33:05PM -0400, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
> More on this with test results, example, setup use, and more details.
>
> ==
>
> Without MD5 configure.
>
> With bgpd master
> Clear session from bgpd side, session comes back up rig
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 06:33:05PM -0400, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
> More on this with test results, example, setup use, and more details.
>
> The short of it is that bgpd will not establish an MD5 connection as
> slave ever! So, if you do get an MD5 session in normal operation, it may
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
