> I had the same problem, just change this
> ntpd/nts_client.c: const char *label = "EXPORTER-nts/1";
> To this:
> ntpd/nts_client.c: char *label = "EXPORTER-network-time-security/1";
> Then it worked for me.
OK. I just pushed a fix. That will break things until everybody gets updated.
FreeB
I assume this is a known problem, but just in case...
I getting thing like this:
Job #183070318 ( https://gitlab.com/NTPsec/ntpsec/-/jobs/183070318 )
Stage: build
Name: openSUSE-leap-basic
Trace: to unblock using this file on your own risk. Empty input will discard
the file.
Unblock or disca
zoo.weinigel.se:4447 works
I think it's using the default port 123 since I don't see a message announcing
a different port.
zoo.weinigel.se:4446 gets through NTS-KE but no response to NTP
nts-test.strangled.net:443 gets through NTS-KE, but no response to NTP
--
These are my opinions. I hate
Yo Hal!
Sorry, one correction.
> Ah, I changed to :4446 and nothing. So he did not add a second
> server, he moved his one server.
Looking with nmap, both ports 4446 and 4447 are live. Some negotitation
issue?
RGDS
GARY
Gary E. Miller via devel :
> Yo All!
>
> I suspect Hal stayed up most of the night. I did not, but the folks
> in Prague at the Hackathon hung around there late, so I got to do some
> testing with them.
>
> Of the 4 working NTS examples, with some tweaks here and there, all
> 4 version interconn
Yo Hal!
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 16:51:39 -0700
Hal Murray via devel wrote:
> > The port assignment thing is much more important.
>
> Yes, but not going to happen this weekend.
Is that anything someone else could add?
RGDS
GARY
> The port assignment thing is much more important.
Yes, but not going to happen this weekend.
--
These are my opinions. I hate spam.
___
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Yo Hal!
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 15:41:12 -0700
Hal Murray via devel wrote:
> > Wireshark not happy with the NTPsec NTP out packets:
>
> Probably some sort of confusion with NTP extension type assignments.
> We are using some numerical values that somebody pulled out of the
> air.
>
> On the othe
> Wireshark not happy with the NTPsec NTP out packets:
Probably some sort of confusion with NTP extension type assignments. We are
using some numerical values that somebody pulled out of the air.
On the other hand, Wireshark seems to think it knows something about some of
them.
>File Times
Yo All!
I suspect Hal stayed up most of the night. I did not, but the folks
in Prague at the Hackathon hung around there late, so I got to do some
testing with them.
Of the 4 working NTS examples, with some tweaks here and there, all
4 version interconnect, and share secure time, with all the ot
Yo Hal!
On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 22:22:41 -0700
Hal Murray via devel wrote:
> > I'm even happier if waf autodetects too old openssl. We can't just
> > support the latest/coolest/shiniest
>
> It works with all the old systems I have access to. That includes
> some that are older than yours. (wh
Yo Hal!
Wireshark not happy with the NTPsec NTP out packets:
Extension
Flags: 0x02
Opcode: AUTO (4)
Extension length: 104
Association ID: 693239695
Timestamp: 0x02b7e9ab
File Timestamp: 0x0e465d78
Value length: 1236420572
[Expert Info (Warning/Protocol): Value
>
> On 23 Mar 2019, at 16:05, Gary E. Miller wrote:
>
> Yo Hal!
>
> My servers are updated.
>
That’s my server updated
Mike
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 08:33:37 -0700
> Hal Murray wrote:
>
>> The server response wasn't setting up the right length for the
>> encrypted part. The client receive s
Yo Hal!
My servers are updated.
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 08:33:37 -0700
Hal Murray wrote:
> The server response wasn't setting up the right length for the
> encrypted part. The client receive side didn't use that field but
> computed the length another way so it didn't discover the bug.
>
RGDS
Done. Thanks.
--
Sanjeev Gupta
+65 98551208 http://www.linkedin.com/in/ghane
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 11:40 PM Hal Murray wrote:
>
> The server response wasn't setting up the right length for the encrypted
> part.
> The client receive side didn't use that field but computed the length
> a
The server response wasn't setting up the right length for the encrypted part.
The client receive side didn't use that field but computed the length another
way so it didn't discover the bug.
--
These are my opinions. I hate spam.
___
devel mai
16 matches
Mail list logo
