search for: renegotiates

Hello. I've just tested my system that runs dovecot 2.3.4.1 on debian buster with testssl.sh (https://testssl.sh/) and is says: Secure Renegotiation (CVE-2009-3555) not vulnerable (OK) Secure Client-Initiated Renegotiation VULNERABLE (NOT ok), potential DoS threat Is this a configuration or a compilation issue and how to solve it? -- sergio.

hai, As far as i know, no. Unless you are forceing all clients to use SSLv2 only (since that doesn't support renegotiation). Are you sure you want to disable it and not just prevent old clients from using the vulnerable renegotiation methods? If it's the last you'll need to upgrade to 2.8+ to get access to tls_disable_workarounds. you have 2 problems. - One is the vulnerable

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Osiris <dovecot at flut.demon.nl> wrote: > On 09-03-16 13:14, djk wrote: >> On 09/03/16 10:44, Florent B wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I don't see any SSL configuration option in Dovecot to disable >>> "Client-initiated secure renegotiation". >>> >>> It is advised to disable it as it can

On 09/03/16 10:44, Florent B wrote: > Hi, > > I don't see any SSL configuration option in Dovecot to disable > "Client-initiated secure renegotiation". > > It is advised to disable it as it can cause DDoS (CVE-2011-1473). > > Is it possible to have this possibility through an SSL option or other ? > > Thank you. > > Florent ssl_protocols = !SSLv3

<div style="font:14px/1.5 'Lucida Grande', '微软雅黑';color:#333;"><p style="line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px; font-family: 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif !important;">Hi All,</p><p style="line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px; font-family: 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif

Hello, I don't know who will read this message, but I found this thread: https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=dovecot at dovecot.org&q=subject:%22Dovecot+2.3.0+TLS%22&o=newest And I'm expected the same issue, I will try to explain to you (english is not my native language, sorry) Since Buster update, so Dovecot update too, I'm not able to connect to my mail server from my

Using Asterisk-1.4.17, Zaptel-1.4.8, libpri-1.4.3 Upgraded this morning, now PRI channels are unstable as hell. After about 5 minutes all asterisk commands on the console refuse to respond, attached is the debug log right before and after the "lock-up", IT occurred between 9:18 and 9:20 AM at 9:20 I restarted asterisk. Box is debian w/ asterisk built from scratch. My setup is

Hi, This is just a quick note to state that the recently reported SSL/TLS MITM attack[1] *does not* affect SSH. Like SSL/TLS, SSH supports key and parameter renegotiation, but it is not vulnerable because a session identifier is carried over from the first key exchange into all subsequent key exchanges. Technical details: In SSL, key exchanges and subsequent renegotiations are completely

Hi all, i read about the TLS-RENEGOTIATION vulnerability: http://www.educatedguesswork.org/2009/11/understanding_the_tls_renegoti.html http://www.sslshopper.com/article-ssl-and-tls-renegotiation-vulnerability-discovered.html www.phonefactor.com/sslgapdocs/Renegotiating_TLS.pdf Does the Asterisk 1.6/1.8 SIP/TLS implementation suffer from the TLS Renegotiation vulnerability or the

>>>>>> facing [ no shared cipher ] error with EC private keys. >>>>> the client connecting to your instance has to support ecdsa >>>>> >>>>> >>>> It does - Thunderbird 60.0b10 (64-bit) >>>> >>>> [ security.ssl3.ecdhe_ecdsa_aes_256_gcm_sha384;true ] >>>> >>>> It seems there is

Hi All, Sorry for disturbing you if the issues has been discussed earlier but I cannot find clear explanation of my problem. Tracing the tinc logs (a debug level) I have found that the MTU value of the connection is determined and chosen at the beginning of the tunnel setup. My question is following: is the MTU value renegotiated / rechecked after the tunnel is established? The question

>>>> facing [ no shared cipher ] error with EC private keys. >>> the client connecting to your instance has to support ecdsa >>> >>> >> It does - Thunderbird 60.0b10 (64-bit) >> >> [ security.ssl3.ecdhe_ecdsa_aes_256_gcm_sha384;true ] >> >> It seems there is a difference between the private key (rsa vs. ecc -> >>

This patch exports a new virtio core function: virtio_block_feature. The function should be called during a virtio driver probe. If a virtio driver blocks features during probe and fails probe, virtio core will reset the device, try to re-negotiate the new features and probe again. Signed-off-by: Alvaro Karsz <alvaro.karsz at solid-run.com> --- drivers/virtio/virtio.c | 73

Dear colleagues, experimenting with new amd64-based router we found strange re(4) behaviour when working in autoselect media mode: whenever promisc mode turned on, renegotiating occurs, leading to 3 to 45 (depending on STP settings on the switch) network unavailability. Moreover, some other re(4) setting changes seem to disturb link state unneededly (such as ifconfig re0 -vlanhwtag) The most

Hi Keir: [NET] front: Fix features on resume when csum is off When the netfront driver is resumed the features are renegotiated with the backend. However, I forgot take into account the status of the TX checksum setting. When TX checksum is disabled by the user, we cannot enable SG or TSO since both require checksum offload. This patch makes xennet check the checksum setting before

Hello, I was reading about secure Dialect negotiation to prevent man-in-middle to downgrade dialects & capabilities. _https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/openspecification/2012/06/28/smb3-secure-dialect-negotiation/_ I wanted to ask, is there any option to disable SMB2 to do dialect renegotiation as present in Windows8 clients, as they can control using RequireSecureNegotiate. -- Thanks Amit

On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 04:15:16PM +0300, Alvaro Karsz wrote: > This patch exports a new virtio core function: virtio_block_feature. > The function should be called during a virtio driver probe. > > If a virtio driver blocks features during probe and fails probe, virtio > core will reset the device, try to re-negotiate the new features and > probe again. > >

Hi all I have an ADSL modem which reboots when there is a power cut and the inverter (UPS) kicks in. Internet access is down for a duration of 1 to 2 minutes while the modem boots. I have many SSH tunnels and shells active. Due to the default "TCPKeepAlive On" setting, these sessions are terminated almost immediately. I tried the following configuration: sshd_config on server:

>>>>>>> facing [ no shared cipher ] error with EC private keys. >>>>>> the client connecting to your instance has to support ecdsa >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> It does - Thunderbird 60.0b10 (64-bit) >>>>> >>>>> [ security.ssl3.ecdhe_ecdsa_aes_256_gcm_sha384;true ] >>>>>

...ever arrive at the server; this happens in about half of the phones- with no consistency as to which lose registration. It looks like the router is swallowing the messages, or there's some kind of NAT problem. Other clients at other sites are fine. The problem clears if the phone is rebooted (renegotiates a new nat path?) Any help warmly appreciated. John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20111121/c6b6f7b1/attachment.htm>