Displaying 20 results from an estimated 154 matches for "renegotiations".
Did you mean:
renegotiation
2019 Apr 11
1
Secure Client-Initiated Renegotiation
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.
2015 Aug 18
0
SSL Renegotiation Attack "Disabling reneotiation"
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
2016 Mar 10
2
Client-initiated secure renegotiation
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
2016 Mar 09
2
Client-initiated secure renegotiation
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
2014 Jun 04
1
Renegotiate SIP audio codec after call is up
<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
2019 Jul 18
1
Dovecot 2.3.0 TLS
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
2008 Jan 16
2
Zap Issues
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
2009 Nov 06
0
SSL vulnerability and SSH
...ed 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
independent. This allows an attack as follows: a MITM intercepts a
connection from a real client. It then connects to the target server
itself and negotiates a SSL/TLS connection. The MITM may then inject
some data of its choice (say, the start of a HTTP request) before it
initiates...
2010 Sep 22
0
TLS re-negotiation attack on SIP/TLS of Asterisk?
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
2018 Jul 30
2
2.3.2.1 - EC keys suppport?
>>>>>> 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
2013 Dec 10
1
MTU issues
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
2018 Jul 30
2
2.3.2.1 - EC keys suppport?
>>>> 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 ->
>>
2023 Apr 30
1
[RFC PATCH net 1/3] virtio: re-negotiate features if probe fails and features are blocked
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
2005 Mar 10
4
re driver trobles (RELENG_5)
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
2006 Aug 16
3
[NET] front: Fix features on resume when csum is off
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
2017 Apr 20
2
Is FSCTL_VALIDATE_NEGOTIATE_INFO mandatory in samba-4.4 & onwards
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
2023 Apr 30
1
[RFC PATCH net 1/3] virtio: re-negotiate features if probe fails and features are blocked
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.
>
>
2010 Aug 02
7
Persistent SSH sessions
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:
2018 Jul 30
0
2.3.2.1 - EC keys suppport?
>>>>>>> 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 ]
>>>>>
2011 Nov 21
1
vigor 2920 problems
One of our clients has a Draytek Vigor 2920- their natted Snom phones
behind it are registered to an Asterisk 1.4 server on an external public IP.
I've set QOS, bandwidth management and turned off the SIP ALG via telnet
but I'm still having some problems with some of the phones losing
registration if Asterisk is restarted.
I can see the phones sending SIP REGISTER messages, but they