>Z number of people will use stream cyphers when they really should be
>using ssh, because there are active attackers on the network and the
>data is security-critical. This despite that the documentation will
>still recommend using SSH as a first choice.
The attacks on synchronous stream cipher
On 29 Oct 2000, "Paul D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, I'm having a problem: rsync is insisting on re-distributing just
> about all the files. I know they're not different, because rdist is
> keeping them up to date. Some that rsync wants to re-send haven't been
> touched since 19
I'm trying to see if I should switch from rdist (which I've been using
for years) to rsync. I'm not interested in the security aspects, as
the job is transferring between various internal sites. I'm _very_
interested in speed, because the filesystem in question is _very_ large:
almost 3G right n
On 28 Oct 2000, Bennett Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you've got a plan that will not weaken rsync, and that will
> add some valuable security in some settings. It's nicely
> complementary to rsync-over-ssh. Those of us who use rsync-over-ssh
> haven't even figured out what the daemon
Another brief note:
taking exclude.c, log.c and rsync.h from the CVS, substituting them in the
2.4.6 code, and compiling produces a version that at least runs ... and
produces the same result in not copying a directory without its files that
straight 2.4.6 code does.
Ah well,
Whit
On Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 02:16:50PM -0500, Whit wrote:
> So if I don't want those files and do want to get those directories, I
> should install the CVS version?
To answer that question: No. Installing the CVS on both systems results in
rsync just not working. The report is:
# rsync -e ssh -avv
Martin,
Thanks for the detail explanation. But it still doesn't work for me. Is
there something that's been fixed in CVS? I'm using version 2.4.6 from the
tar.
I also notice you put the include and exclude statements between the two
directory specs, rather than up front with the other tags - but
On Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 02:54:26PM +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 28 Oct 2000, Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My guess is that if the SSHv2 spec issues are cleared up then SSHv2 is
> > the best possibility for rsync. I don't mean using SSH with rsync as is
> > done now, but rather
On 29 Oct 2000, Martin Pool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Although I would prefer a cypher with a nonproprietary design, RC4
> does seem to be widely used and trusted. Schneier also mentions SEAL;
> I'll look at it later.
It turns out that SEAL is patented (patent pending?) by IBM, so it's
even
