On May 1, 2007, at 1:16 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Henry B. Hotz wrote:
>> OK, so posted. ;-)
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> Would you like a new version of the patch with the incomplete
>>>> functionality commented out (or otherwise removed)?
>
> Yes please :-) I was going to try to do one of those myself, but since
> you already know your way around the code, please do it. And please go
> for removing it alltogether instead of just commenting it out -
> it's in
> the list archives and can be referred to there if/when we want to
> add it
> back in.
I can do that.
Could I ask you, or someone else, to look at what needs to happen to
configure? The way you capture `krb5-config --libs gssapi` into a
variable is completely different in BSD and GNU make, and I don't
know how to deal with that. (The configure logic for mod_auth_kerb
suffers from that problem, too.) The README.GSSAPI file in the patch
has reasonable notes, and it should be pretty simple otherwise.
> I'd also vote for changing the name of the "non encrypted" version to
> just "gss" instead of "gss-np".
I happen to disagree on this point. There are a whole class of
attacks that become possible if the encryption from the original
authentication exchange isn't used for the on-going channel
encryption/integrity. They may be impossible in practice, but how
many cans of worms do you want to deal with when you recommend a
"secure" configuration to an average admin? I would rather not hide
the distinction by changing the name that way.
Also, if I *do* get the buffering disentangled and create a working
"gss" mechanism, what would I call it if the name is already taken?
At that point it would become the recommended mechanism unless high-
volume performance made it impractical.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed in this message are mine,
not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
Henry.B.Hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu
