similar to: Optimizations and other questions for rsync

Hi, I've installed cygwin and rsync on a vista client and want backup it to a Linux server: On client side (vista) I use rsync 3.0.4 (protocol version 30) Capabilities: 64-bit files, 64-bit inums, 32-bit timestamps, 64-bit long ints, socketpairs, hardlinks, symlinks, no IPv6, batchfiles, inplace, append, ACLs, no xattrs, iconv, symtimes On server side (linux) I have rsync 3.0.3

On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 14:58 -0800, rsync2eran@tromer.org wrote: > A year ago we discussed the strength of the MD4 hash used by rsync and > librsync, and one of the points mentioned was that only collision > attacks are known on MD4. Could you please forward this into the bug tracker so it's not lost? -- Martin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was

Hi, while implementing the rsync protocol in one of our projects I found that the current CVS version still has a MD4 bug. I'm using the FreeBSD libmd implementation and I still had checksum mismatches with protocol version 27 for files whose size was a multiple of 64 - 4 ( - 4 due to checksum_seed). A patch for todays CVS version is attached. Someone should also review the clean_fname()

I am the author of BackupPC (http://backuppc.sourceforge.net) and I am working on adding rsync support to BackupPC. I am implementing the server-side in perl, and the client will run vanilla rsync. (BTW, is there the protocol documented? I've answered all my questions by looking at the source, but it would be great to check against any docs.) I started with librsync 0.9.3 and the

On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:22:14PM -0800, Craig Barratt wrote: > And I have several things I would like to work on and submit: > > - Fix the MD4 block and file checksums to comply with the rfc > (currently MD4 is wrong for blocks of size 64*n, or files > longer than 512MB). > > - Adaptive first pass checksum lengths: use 3 or more bytes of the MD4 > block

Hi All, I''m trying to repair a broken fs using btrfsck and am hitting a failed assertion. I''d appreciate any suggestions for what to do next. Is there any thing I can do to help fix this bug? Any other information from my FS which would help? If the FS could be salvaged that would be a bonus, but I''m more interested in providing a useful bug report before wiping the

Is anyone else concerned about the fact that rsync doesn't guarantee to produce identical file copies on the the target machine? Don't get me wrong in sounding critical because I think that rsync is a great example of how software should be written. (I often make the observation, as I learn more about Linux, and inevitably find myself comparing open source applications to Microsoft

Hi, In the past (2 months ago) : I have two AD Domain under Samba 4.1 : A and B. I war able to  connect a share in A from B. Now (after upgrade) : I have a W2016 domain (B) and a Samba 4.6 domain (A) but I can't connect a share in A from B. The user from B which try to connect the share in A has the same login in the two domains. So since the upgrade I don't have the same behavior

I'm sorry for asking a question which has been asked so many times before, but I can't seem to find the answer... How do I get to access my home directory on a Linux server running Samba from a Windows XP client? I'm getting "NT MD4 password check failed" in the log file even though the Windows client is listed in hosts.equiv. More information below... I have a small home

Hi, The following lines in compat.c are rather imprudent: if (read_batch || write_batch) checksum_seed = 32761; else checksum_seed = time(NULL); write_int(f_out,checksum_seed); Setting checksum_seed to a constant in batch mode means block collisions are reproducible and predictable. Thus, some files will be permanently "unlucky" in batch mode and will

Hello All, Well, I've admitted defeat. I've installed Samba 2.2.3a on a Solaris 7 machine and am trying to connect to it from a Win2K SP2 PC. I am using encrypted passwords. The same user (darren) exists on the pc (called 'plm') and the samba server ('sparky2'). The password for this user is the same on the PC, and the /etc/shadow and /apps/samba/private/smbpasswd

Hello, While porting rsync 2.5.6 to .NET (C#), I noticed that the MD4 engine in the original source code in my possession behaved differently from the C# MD4 engine that I was using in my own code. While testing the file transfer between my program and a compiled version of rsync 2.5.6, I noticed that the file checksums generated for the entire file to detect corruption on the link were

Vista32 3.0.25pre2 (I understand vista patches for "share level" are already in) security = share (with "valid users" on share definition) host msdfs = no user/pass in smbpasswd file. If I use "connect network drive..." method with "connect as another user", then it will always work. If I use start, search , \\server\share and then type user/pass in

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Searching in the ext3 filesystem mailing list I have seen that there is an indexed directory extension for it. Is this extension stable code ? Has anyone test it ? How may I obtain and install it ? Is it available in any of the last kernel releases ? Greetings. - --- Carles Xavier Munyoz Baldó carles@descom.es Descom Consulting Telf: +34

We have serveral RHEL 3.0 Update 2 servers running Samba. These have been working flawlessly for several months.. Recently, the base upgraded all the Windows 2000 servers to Windows 2003.. NOTE: we don't have admin rights to the Domain Controllers.. (wish we did..) Previous to the Domain (and kdc) controllers to 2003 we had no issues joining a new Samba Sever to the ADS.. Using the same

Hi, From v3.0.0 onwards the hash function implemented by Rsync was changed from MD4 to MD5 (http://rsync.samba.org/ftp/rsync/src/rsync-3.0.0-NEWS). My understanding is that MD5 is a more secure, slower version of MD4 but I am not convinced that the added security of MD5 would alone have merited the change from MD4 (particularly since MD4 is ~30% faster than MD5). I wonder if I am missing other

> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 07:03:49 -0800 > From: "Jorge Silva (Jorge Gomes da Silva)" <jorgesil@microsoft.com> > To: "'samba@samba.anu.edu.au'" <samba@samba.anu.edu.au> > Subject: /etc/passwd - Domain Controller Synchronization > Message-ID: <A1A4DA3CD56ECF11973200805F685F1680F51B@LIS-01-MSG> > > Hello, > > I don't know

Would the asm md4 implementation used by Shareaza (under the GNU GPL) be appropreate to use in order to accelerate rsync? http://shareaza.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/shareaza/trunk/shareaza/asm/MD4_asm.asm?view=log http://sourceforge.net/projects/shareaza/

Hi, Is there a bug with the NT MD4 password check?? With one password, I can't access the shares.. in the log it says: ntlm_password_check: NT MD4 password check failed for user jason But when I change the password to something else it works. What's goin on?? Jason. -- Jason Coo Computer Engineer, P.Eng. The Fluid Life Corporation 1-877-962-2400 jason@fluidlife.com

I seem to be doing something really stupid or missing something really obvious but what? I have a simple three column data.frame that I would like to reshape to wide preferably using reshape2. An example from http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9617348/reshape-three-column-data-frame-to-matrix looked perfect except I wanted a data frame but it seemed okay. I just changed acast to dcast and it