Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 18:28:10 -0500 (EST) From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU> To: Daniel Kalchev <daniel@digsys.bg> Cc: "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-security@freebsd.org" <freebsd-security@freebsd.org> Subject: kereros telnet/rlogin/etc. (was Re: OpenSSH HPN) Message-ID: <alpine.GSO.1.10.1511111816590.26829@multics.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <546376BD-A2E7-4B73-904E-4F33DD82401E@digsys.bg> References: <86io5a9ome.fsf@desk.des.no> <20151110175216.GN65715@funkthat.com> <56428C84.8050600@FreeBSD.org> <CAOc73CAHQ0FRPES7GrM6ckkWfgZCS3Se7GFUrDO4pR_EMVSvZQ@mail.gmail.com> <20151111075930.GR65715@funkthat.com> <CAA=KUhs9g9gajxwLFBgn2nNhnn4oQSZ56FRVC%2BPde4ZZO=g7Ug@mail.gmail.com> <546376BD-A2E7-4B73-904E-4F33DD82401E@digsys.bg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > Perhaps similar level of security could be achieved by =E2=80=9Cthe old t= ools=E2=80=9D > if they were by default compiled with Kerberos. Although, this still > requires building additional infrastructure. The kerberized versions of the old tools are basically unsupported upstream at this point. Telnet is actively insecure, being limited to single-DES; rlogin may be somewhat better but it's still not looking very good. ssh is better because it speaks GSS-API instead of raw kerberos, and can thus keeps up with newer crypto automatically. When I was working at MIT, I considered making a final release of the krb5-appl distribution, so as to include in the release announcement that they were not going to be supported further, but could not even bring myself to do that. They are not in Debian anymore, and I expect them to dwindle from other distributions, too. Let the "old tools" grow old and retire. -Ben From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Wed Nov 11 23:56:10 2015 Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36F48A2C5FD; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:56:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) 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 E5FC71648; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:56:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.86 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <slw@zxy.spb.ru>) id 1ZwfFG-000Bqg-FP; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 02:56:06 +0300 Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 02:56:06 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> To: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Dag-Erling =?utf-8?B?U23DuHJncmF2?= <des@des.no>, freebsd-security@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: OpenSSH HPN Message-ID: <20151111235606.GF48728@zxy.spb.ru> References: <86io5a9ome.fsf@desk.des.no> <56428E8A.3090201@FreeBSD.org> <56428F59.5010908@FreeBSD.org> <86y4e47uty.fsf@desk.des.no> <56436F4B.8050002@FreeBSD.org> <86r3jwfpiq.fsf@desk.des.no> <20151111181339.GE48728@zxy.spb.ru> <56438660.5010508@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <56438660.5010508@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated> X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: slw@zxy.spb.ru X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zxy.spb.ru); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current <freebsd-current.freebsd.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-current>, <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/>; List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org> List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:56:10 -0000 On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:18:08AM -0800, Bryan Drewery wrote: > On 11/11/2015 10:13 AM, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 05:51:25PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > > > >> Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> writes: > >>> Another thing that I did with the port was restore the tcpwrapper > >>> support that upstream removed. Again, if we decide it is not worth > >>> keeping in base I will remove it as default in the port. > >> > >> I want to keep tcpwrapper support - it is another reason why I still > >> haven't upgraded OpenSSH, but to the best of my knowledge, it is far > >> less intrusive than HPN. > > > > Can you explain what is problem? > > I am see openssh in base and openssh in ports (more recent version) > > with same functionaly patches. > > You talk about trouble to upgrade. What is root? > > openssh in base have different vendor and/or license? > > Or something else? > > > > PS: As I today know, kerberos heimdal is practicaly dead as opensource > > project. Have FreeBSD planed switch to MIT Kerberos? > > I am know about security/krb5. > > > > IMHO the problem comes down to time. Patching an upstream project > increases maintenance cost for upgrading it. Every patch adds up. When > you become busy and don't have time to pay attention to every little > change made in a release, hearing 'removed tcpwrappers support' or > 'refactored the code <more> for libssh usage' makes it sound like 1 more > thing you must deal with to upgrade that code base and more effort to > validate that your patches are right. We obviously don't want to just > drop in the latest code and throw it out there as broken. SSH is quite > critical and we want to ensure our changes are still right, and that > doing something like adding tcpwrappers back in won't introduce some > security bug that upstream was coy about. Some for as ports version? Or ports version different? Or port mantainer have more time (this is not to blame for DES)? I am just don't know what is different between port ssh and base ssh. We need ssh 6.x in base, not 7.x as in port (why?) and this is need independed work on pathes? I am missing somehow commonplace for others.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.GSO.1.10.1511111816590.26829>