similar to: [Bug 1056] RekeyLimit can be ridiculously low and is undocumented.

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1056 Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED --- Comment #9 from Damien Miller <djm at

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1390 Summary: RekeyLimit max value is too restrictive Classification: Unclassified Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 4.7p1 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: ssh AssignedTo: bitbucket at mindrot.org

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2264 Bug ID: 2264 Summary: RekeyLimit option does not allow '4G' value when UINT_MAX is 0xffffffff Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 6.6p1 Hardware: Other OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5

Hello list, I'm not sure whether this is bug worthy or just my own insanity. I'm using 6.4p1 packages from Debian jessie and wheezy-backports. I like VisualHostKey, although it may not add any protection (other than not trusting ones own known_hosts file?), I've become accustomed to it as it seems that extra neurons fire when I log into a host and get a visual cue of what looks like

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2252 Bug ID: 2252 Summary: RekeyLimit breaks ClientAlive Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 6.6p1 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: sshd Assignee: unassigned-bugs at mindrot.org

Hi, OpenSSH 6.3 is almost ready for release, so we would appreciate testing on as many platforms and systems as possible. This release contains some substantial new features and a number of bugfixes. Snapshot releases for portable OpenSSH are available from http://www.mindrot.org/openssh_snap/ The OpenBSD version is available in CVS HEAD: http://www.openbsd.org/anoncvs.html Portable OpenSSH is

Hello, I'm trying to configure the openssh sftp server to perform re-keying. On the client side I've found the RekeyLimit parameter. But I am unable to find an equivalent for the server side. Is it currently not possible to configure the sftp server to perform re-keying? Or have I overlooked something. -- R _________________________________________________________________ Snygga till

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2726 Bug ID: 2726 Summary: Uploading of large files (1GB+) fails when using SFTP in chrooted configuration Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 7.3p1 Hardware: amd64 OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5

I was wondering if there was something specific to the internal chacha20 cipher as opposed to OpenSSL implementation. I can't just change the block size because it breaks compatibility. I can do something like as a hack (though it would probably be better to do it with the compat function): if (strstr(enc->name, "chacha")) *max_blocks = (u_int64_t)1 << (16*2);

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2521 Bug ID: 2521 Summary: subtract buffer size from computed rekey limit to avoid exceeding it Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 6.8p1 Hardware: amd64 OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: minor Priority: P5 Component: sshd

Hi all, On LLVM version 7.0.1, incremental builds are very fast for both Release and Debug. I’m compiling with Xcode I recently downloaded LLVM 9.0 from the LLVM-mirror Github repository and found that Incremental "Debug” builds take a ridiculously long time due to Tablegen taking ages (literally more than 10 minutes) to generate files. This makes it totally unusable for debug purposes.

On Wed, 29 Mar 2023, Chris Rapier wrote: > I was wondering if there was something specific to the internal chacha20 > cipher as opposed to OpenSSL implementation. > > I can't just change the block size because it breaks compatibility. I can do > something like as a hack (though it would probably be better to do it with the > compat function): > > if

I'm hardly an expert on this, but if I remember correctly, the rekey rate for good security is mostly dependent on the cipher block size. I left my reference books at home; so, I can't come up with a reference for you, but I would take Chris' "I'm deeply unsure of what impact that would have on the security of the cipher" comment seriously and switch to a cipher with a

That's true for block ciphers, but ChaCha20+poly1305 is a stream cipher. On Wed, 29 Mar 2023, Robinson, Herbie wrote: > > I?m hardly an expert on this, but if I remember correctly, the rekey rate > for good security is mostly dependent on the cipher block size.? I left my > reference books at home; so, I can?t come up with a reference for you, but I > would take Chris?

Hi Florian, Ok, I ran this: cmake -S LLVM -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=INSTALL -DLLVM_OPTIMIZED_TABLEGEN=On -G Xcode Compiled it again from clean, and the situation is worse than before. Incremental builds take an incredible amount of time stuck in running Tablegen scripts for all targets. Now this happens both in Release and Debug configurations. Just before this, at least Release compiled fine, but

I'm wondering why the ChaCha20 cipher rekeys so frequently. At speed I'm seeing rekeys every second or two. So I'm spending a large amount of time in the rekey process. From what I've read about ChaCha20 it shouldn't need to be rekeyed quite so frequently. Am I missing something obvious? Just curious more than anything else. Chris

On Aug 22, 2008, at 9:30 AM, Vikram S. Adve wrote: > In the general case, I think you have to be conservative about this > because programmers may deliberately want this kind of "wraparound" > behavior, e.g., with periodic boundary conditions. But 99.9% of > programs probably don't need that so it would be bad to penalize them > for this corner case. In such a

On Aug 22, 2008, at 9:34 AMPDT, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Aug 22, 2008, at 9:30 AM, Vikram S. Adve wrote: > >> In the general case, I think you have to be conservative about this >> because programmers may deliberately want this kind of "wraparound" >> behavior, e.g., with periodic boundary conditions. But 99.9% of >> programs probably don't need

Hi Praveen, Please, can you elaborate on this?. What do do mean by “building as shared objects”. Thanks, John > On 30 Jun 2019, at 07:32, Praveen Velliengiri <praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> wrote: > > Maybe try building llvm as a shared objects.. > > On Jun 30, 2019 1:30 AM, "Joan Lluch via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at

>However, there is one issue I have ignored - possibility of overflow in >the index expression. Suppose, we have such a loop: > for (i8 i = 0; i != 200; ++i) { > A[2 * i + 5] = ... > ... = A[2 * i + 3] > } >If both index expressions are evaluated in 8-bit arithmetic, >then the dependence equation should be solved in modular arithmetic: > 2 * i + 5 == 2 * (i +