Can the project wire an explosive booby trap inside the CD box to ensure
that any sneaky postman is blown away by the awesomeness of openBSD ?
(for a decent supplementary fee of course)
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Kenneth R Westerback <
kwesterb...@rogers.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 07:52:22PM +0300, Valentin Zagura wrote:
>
> I thought if we buy the CDs we WILL get "a solid evidentuary path from
> commit to" our hands.
>
> So this isn't the case?
You'll be safe enough.
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 07:52:22PM +0300, Valentin Zagura wrote:
> > There is no entity
> > that owns or can be held responsible for the code, or is capable
> > of providing a solid evidentuary path from commit to your hands.
>
> I thought if we buy the CDs we WILL get "a solid evidentuary path fr
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 06:59:13PM +0200, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > Ok, let's stop this. I don't think you read what I replied before. I
> > didn't say that we're static with if_indexes, just that we shouldn't
> > make it worse.
> >
>
> or implement persistent indices in the snmpd itself maybe?
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
...
> either way, we need to move forward on this. we want to use if_index
> for the purpose of looking up the interface w/o a pointer to the ifnet.
This sounds like just using a pid to identify processes and hoping
they haven't wrapped aro
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 09:22:51AM -0400, Kenneth R Westerback wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:49:30AM +0200, InterNetX - Robert Garrett wrote:
> > The real problem here is that in order to be added to certain lists
> > of trusted PKI providers, you must be audited by security Assessors
> > on
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 05:53:42PM +0200, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> looks like you misunderstand the problem we're dealing with here.
>
Sure, I do. You're trying to push one thing and you don't want to
hear the concerns about a specific detail of it.
> >> FWIW it would be interesting to modify tu
On 12 September 2013 18:48, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 06:28:15PM +0200, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
>> > Sure, I do. You're trying to push one thing and you don't want to
>> > hear the concerns about a specific detail of it.
>> >
>>
>> with all respect, i think you don't. otherwise
On 12 September 2013 19:07, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 06:59:13PM +0200, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
>> > Ok, let's stop this. I don't think you read what I replied before. I
>> > didn't say that we're static with if_indexes, just that we shouldn't
>> > make it worse.
>> >
>>
>> or
* Mike Belopuhov [2013-09-12 17:54]:
> it makes no sense whatsoever, reyk. those indices can be easily
> stolen and nobody guarantees that if you create vlan10, vlan11,
> then destroy vlan10, create vlan12 and vlan10 that vlan10 will
> have the same index as before. in fact it might be a differe
On 12 September 2013 18:14, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 05:53:42PM +0200, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
>> looks like you misunderstand the problem we're dealing with here.
>>
>
> Sure, I do. You're trying to push one thing and you don't want to
> hear the concerns about a specific deta
> There is no entity
> that owns or can be held responsible for the code, or is capable
> of providing a solid evidentuary path from commit to your hands.
I thought if we buy the CDs we WILL get "a solid evidentuary path from
commit to" our hands.
So this isn't the case?
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 06:28:15PM +0200, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> > Sure, I do. You're trying to push one thing and you don't want to
> > hear the concerns about a specific detail of it.
> >
>
> with all respect, i think you don't. otherwise you wouldn't be asking
> the questions you're asking.
On 12 September 2013 18:28, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> On 12 September 2013 18:14, Reyk Floeter wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 05:53:42PM +0200, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
>>> looks like you misunderstand the problem we're dealing with here.
>>>
>>
>> Sure, I do. You're trying to push one thing and y
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 07:19:34PM +0200, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> either way, we need to move forward on this. we want to use if_index
> for the purpose of looking up the interface w/o a pointer to the ifnet.
> should we implement additional indices for that or snmp problem will
> be dealt with?
On 12 September 2013 17:31, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 05:18:39PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
>> > For example, you have to query the IfIndex via SNMP to get further
>> > information, like the ifName or statistics, and most monitoring
>> > systems would save interface informat
On 12/09/13(Thu) 16:40, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 06:51:46AM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 01:39:14PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > > I think that's the right approach but the current code generating
> > > interfaces indexes is too clever from my po
On 12 September 2013 17:18, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> FWIW it would be interesting to modify tun(4) so that it doesn't
> need to detach/reattach itself when switching between mode, this
> would allow us to stop reusing the last index.
>
this definitely makes a lot of sense.
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 05:18:39PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > For example, you have to query the IfIndex via SNMP to get further
> > information, like the ifName or statistics, and most monitoring
> > systems would save interface information based on the index - they
> > would not recognize
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 06:51:46AM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 01:39:14PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > I think that's the right approach but the current code generating
> > interfaces indexes is too clever from my point of view, it tries
> > to reuse the last index if
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:49:30AM +0200, InterNetX - Robert Garrett wrote:
> The real problem here is that in order to be added to certain lists
> of trusted PKI providers, you must be audited by security Assessors
> one of the things they look for is proof that the software your
> using isnt tamp
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Eivind Evensen wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Trying to figure out what I've done wrong to have a diskless setup
> boot the kernel and then try to talk to a broadcast address rather than
> the nfsserver, I saw this typo.
>
> Eivind
>
>
> Index: sys/nfs/nfs_boot.c
> ==
Hello.
Trying to figure out what I've done wrong to have a diskless setup
boot the kernel and then try to talk to a broadcast address rather than
the nfsserver, I saw this typo.
Eivind
Index: sys/nfs/nfs_boot.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/s
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Henning Brauer
wrote:
> * sven falempin [2013-09-11 22:30]:
> > At his point <> is available.
> > Lets assume pf_state got a "struct pf_osfp_enlist l_osfp"
> > To get back the info from userland, doing
> >
> > Would a diff like this hurts ??
>
> everything t
The real problem here is that in order to be added to certain lists of
trusted PKI providers, you must be audited by security Assessors one of
the things they look for is proof that the software your using isnt
tampered with.
It appears the OP is trying to solve that issue. EVEN using the CD i
25 matches
Mail list logo
