Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 10:05:40 -0500 From: Paul Schmehl <pauls@utdallas.edu> To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BSDstats Project v2.0 ... Message-ID: <44D9F9C4.4050406@utdallas.edu> In-Reply-To: <20060809055245.J7522@ganymede.hub.org> References: <20060807003815.C7522@ganymede.hub.org> <20060808102819.GB64879@augusta.de> <20060808153921.V7522@ganymede.hub.org> <44D8EC98.8020801@utdallas.edu> <20060808201359.S7522@ganymede.hub.org> <44D91F02.90107@mawer.org> <20060808212719.L7522@ganymede.hub.org> <20060809072313.GA19441@sysadm.stc> <20060809055245.J7522@ganymede.hub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Igor Robul wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 09:30:42PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: >>> Could create problems long term .. one thing I will be using the >>> IPs to do is: >>> >>> SELECT ip, count(1) FROM systems GROUP BY ip ORDER BY count DESC; >>> >>> to look for any 'abnormalities' like todays with Armenia ... >>> >>> hashing it would make stuff like that fairly difficult ... >> You can make _two_ hashes and then concatenate to form unique key. >> Then you still be able to see "a lot of single IPs". Personaly, I dont >> care very much about IP/hostname disclosure :-) > > Except that you are disclosing that each and every time you send out an > email, or hit a web site ... :) > The systems I'm concerned about are on private IP space, to not send email and don't have X installed, much less a web browser and can only access certain FreeBSD sites to update ports. In fact, they're not even accessible from *inside* our network except from certain hosts. In order to successfully run the stats script on these hosts, I would have to open a hole in the firewall to bsdstats.hub.org on the correct port. And yes, I *am* paranoid. But if you really want *all* statistics you can get, then you'll have to deal with us paranoid types. My workstation, which is on a public IP, is already registered. > Regardless, though ... what do ppl suggest here? Simple 'md5' hash? I think md5 is fine. SHA256 would probably be better. :-) -- Paul Schmehl (pauls@utdallas.edu) Adjunct Information Security Officer The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/ [-- Attachment #2 --] 0 *H 010 + 0 *H N00AA=e0 *H 010 UUS10U VeriSign, Inc.1<0:U3Class 2 Public Primary Certification Authority - G21:08U1(c) 1998 VeriSign, Inc. - For authorized use only10UVeriSign Trust Network0 990331000000Z 090330235959Z01'0%U The University of Texas System10UVeriSign Trust Network1;09U2Terms of use at https://www.verisign.com/rpa (c)991200U)Class 2 CA - OnSite Individual Subscriber1-0+U$The University of Texas at Dallas CA00 *H 0 "zھ6p`0`S/5ɨ)=d}чTxxLIA ҥ~BQNths]1)%c#Dj9FXúKzI#C2 00)U"0 010UPrivateLabel1-1400 `HB0DU =0;09`HE0*0(+
