Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

perfsonar-dev - Re: [pS-dev] LS usage in SSHTELNET MP

Subject: perfsonar development work

List archive

Re: [pS-dev] LS usage in SSHTELNET MP


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Guilherme Fernandes <>
  • To: Stijn Melis <>
  • Cc: "" <>
  • Subject: Re: [pS-dev] LS usage in SSHTELNET MP
  • Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:49:58 +0200
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=hbcX6W3ZvQtTh6FuO9C1HqFTJ1bCm+RR7dATX0PiF9181Lhv5y51BjpIfFnAKgzOTo vx1XjuJJBSaZZNd1e/md7d1fFFPqhKqiL1zaSIsHn7yxiQkS5Hzs/fUhwN3oslq0KdFh lkQGLar/5TxLtRtoQ7wlWEcTLU4rRN/wXD9jE=

Stijn Melis wrote:
I took a quick look at the code of the ssh/telnet mp on trunk and have two suggestions.

I can see that you are using DES and that the encryption key is hardcoded. DES is easily bruteforceable, you might want to switch to AES 256bits. The encryption key should be set by the administrator and put in the config file, otherwise someone can just get the encrypted password from the source code that is publicly available to decipher it.

But I don't think this type of information should be registered to the LS anyways.

Cheers,

Guilherme

If others share your feelings about this, I have no problem with changing this and creating a seperate metadata config file for registration to the LS. It looks like I'll have to do this anyway, in order for the eventTypes to be registered to the LS as well.

As far as I remember I tried using AES, but it didn't work. Because I was pressed with time, I left the DES as it was. Would you still have a problem with using DES if the information wasn't registered to the LS, because than this information wouldn't be made public?

I wouldn't. But if the information isn't to be made public, I don't see a point in having the encryption in the first place. The only situation it would provide another layer of security is if the encryption key was on the service configuration file and someone got access to *only* the metadata configuration file. But since both files have the same permissions (so they can be read by the service), this situation wouldn't happen. And, if it's DES, it's just a nuisance, not a proper security mechanism...

Cheers,

Guilherme
Cheers,

Stijn





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page