MD5 seems to be compromised by potential collision attacks. So I tried
to figure out how I can use another hash for security purposes when
hashing passwords for local users on a FreeBSD 7/8 box, like root or
local box administration. Looking at man login.conf reveals only three
possible hash algori
Mike Tancsa wrote:
> At 04:45 PM 1/3/2009, O. Hartmann wrote:
>
>> followed by a obligatory "cap_mkdb" seems to do something - changing
>> root's password results in different hashes when selecting different
>> hash algorithms like des, md5, sha1, blf or
Am 04/14/12 21:37, schrieb Richard Kojedzinszky:
> Dear list,
>
> Although it is not only security-related question, I did not get any
> answer from freebsd-performance. The original question is below.
>
> Can someone give some advice?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
>
> Kojedzinszky Richard
> Eurone
, 2x1T sata disks in raid1, the host
> runs linux. I think with this hw the mentioned speed is really slow.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Kojedzinszky Richard
> Euronet Magyarorszag Informatikai Zrt.
>
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012, O. Hartmann wrote:
>
>> Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012
Am 04/15/12 22:00, schrieb Garrett Cooper:
> On Apr 15, 2012, at 12:30 PM, O. Hartmann wrote:
>
>> Am 04/15/12 15:59, schrieb Richard Kojedzinszky:
>>> Thank you for the reply.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, dont know why, but on my xen virtualised environment,
&
On 06/08/12 14:51, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> We still have MD5 as our default password hash, even though known-hash
> attacks against MD5 are relatively easy these days. We've supported
> SHA256 and SHA512 for many years now, so how about making SHA512 the
> default instead of MD5, like on most
On 06/09/12 11:28, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 2012-06-09 09:43, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> On 06/08/12 14:51, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
>>> We still have MD5 as our default password hash, even though known-hash
>>> attacks against MD5 are relatively easy these days. We&
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Despite other problems with IPFW and its documentation regarding NAT, I face a
serious
and disturbing problem.
I run a NanoBSD based router/firewall project of my own, running CURRENT
(FreeBSD
12.0-CURRENT #1 r306333: Mon Sep 26 08:36:02 CEST 201
> it thinks is it’s ServerName. Don’t think NAT has anything to do with it.
>
> Daniel
>
> > On 29.09.2016 г., at 15:47, O. Hartmann wrote:
> >
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA256
> >
> >
> > Despite other problems wit
ry
>
I'm just curious and to have an answere at hand for my superiors:
FreeBSD has a SMB implementation we uitlise with FreeBSD 10.3 and 11.0. Is
FreeBSD's
implementation somehow affected by the bug revealed in SAMBA >= 3.6.25?
Sorry for this "stupid" question, but I need th
Am Tue, 30 May 2017 19:14:42 +0200
Dimitry Andric schrieb:
> On 30 May 2017, at 18:55, O. Hartmann wrote:
> >
> > Am Mon, 29 May 2017 23:47:46 +0200
> > Dimitry Andric schrieb:
> >
> >> On 29 May 2017, at 18:53, Darko Gavrilovic wrote:
> >>
11 matches
Mail list logo
