Hi there,
the temperatures 'sysctl hw.sensors' displays for each CPU
are wrong for the most modern Intel CPUs.
OpenBSD uses only 100 or 85 degC as TJmax for Intel CPUs, but
in reality the TJmax value is somewhere around those specified
values. Intel defines a TJmax for every production batch
On 27 November 2014 at 03:12, Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 18:42 +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 19:04 +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
Hi,
IP header is not always aligned since bpf copies out the mbuf
chain into the contigous
On Thu, 27 Nov 2014, Manuel Schoelling wrote:
Hi,
I hope this is the right mailing list for discussing this issue. I could
not find any information about a mailing list on libressl.org.
Here is fine.
It currently looks like the libtls version does not set a list of secure
ciphers by
On 11/25/14 18:45, J Sisson wrote:
Hi,
kerberos was moved to ports, but the docs still link to kerberos(8):
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq10.html#YP_secure
Does the following diff make sense? (Apologies in advance if gmail
mangles the diff, or if the diff needs to be generated with
Hi,
the facility number is not properly validated while parsing the
configuration file -- it is possible to supply a number which is
larger than LOG_NFACILITIES, therefore accessing memory outside
of f_pmask's boundaries.
# echo 10.debug;syslog,user.info /var/log/messages my.conf
# syslogd
On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 20:42:55 +0100, Tobias Stoeckmann wrote:
the facility number is not properly validated while parsing the
configuration file -- it is possible to supply a number which is
larger than LOG_NFACILITIES, therefore accessing memory outside
of f_pmask's boundaries.
I think it
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 01:29:48PM -0700, Todd C. Miller wrote:
I think it would be better for decode() to just return -1 in this
case.
The validation looks a bit like a magic number there, but this could
prevent issues of other decode()-users, too... So yeah, I think that
is worth it:
Index:
