From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 10 18:36:41 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10723EF9 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:36:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zxy.spb.ru (zxy.spb.ru [195.70.199.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCF9432E for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:36:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.84 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1YLFfq-000LNa-SD; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 21:36:38 +0300 Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 21:36:38 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov To: John-Mark Gurney Subject: Re: removing bdes.. Message-ID: <20150210183638.GK3698@zxy.spb.ru> References: <20150209181502.GF1953@funkthat.com> <20150210151812.GB67127@zxy.spb.ru> <20150210172039.GA1071@reks> <20150210175240.GD67127@zxy.spb.ru> <20150210175852.GV1953@funkthat.com> <20150210180906.GI3698@zxy.spb.ru> <20150210181916.GY1953@funkthat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150210181916.GY1953@funkthat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: slw@zxy.spb.ru X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zxy.spb.ru); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:36:41 -0000 On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:19:16AM -0800, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote this message on Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 21:09 +0300: > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 09:58:52AM -0800, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > > > > Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote this message on Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 20:52 +0300: > > > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 09:20:39AM -0800, Gleb Kurtsou wrote: > > > > > > > > > On (10/02/2015 18:18), Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 10:15:02AM -0800, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, I happen to stuble across bdes recently and think we should remove > > > > > > > it.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm fine w/ making it a port so that people who need it can use it... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Especially considering: > > > > > > > The DES cipher should no longer be considered secure. Please consider > > > > > > > using a more modern alternative. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Though sadly, that comment was added almost 15 years after DES was > > > > > > > brute forced by DEEPCrack. > > > > > > > > > > > > Clear text also insecure. Do you remove all clear text? > > > > > > > > > > This is rather odd argument ;) > > > > > > > > > > I'm all for removing it. openssl provides file encryption for those who > > > > > need it in base. > > > > > > > > 3DES remove too? and how to login users with password in 3DES? > > > > How to migrate old system with 3DES passwords? > > > > > > Please stay on topic, this has nothing to do w/ the proposed removal > > > of the bdes utility.. > > > > Ah, bdes utility, sorry. > > But this is only 20K binary and 25K source and 80K documenation. > > And need to update ed(1) (keep 80K documentation?) > > See my other comment on lack of maintaining the utility... Sorry, I am not understand you point ("someone marked it as insecure" -- right?). What need to maintaining in this utility? And what is insecure in this utility? (As I understanding 'insecure' -- allowing to gain unauthorise access or execute unapproved action) > > x Prompt for an encryption key which is used in subsequent reads > > and writes. If a newline alone is entered as the key, then > > encryption is turned off. Otherwise, echoing is disabled while a > > key is read. Encryption/decryption is done using the bdes(1) > > algorithm. > > It turns out that ed has it's own implementation baked in, so removing > bdes will not effect ed's functionality... > > In my search, it looks like I'll take enigma along w/ bdes... I am talk this not about utility bdes, I am talk about bdes.1 man page and bdes.ps. I think not good reference to not-existing man page. May be need to update ed.1?