similar to: MD4 Engine Bug?

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, 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()

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

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

Thanks. I've rebased this patch on top of the recent LLVM (it was straightforward) and applied it in my fork. It seems to have solved one of the problems I was having. Would LLVM be interested if I submit the updated version for the review? -- Danila From: Philip Reames [mailto:listmail at philipreames.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 19:01 To: Danila Malyutin <Danila.Malyutin at

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

I've noticed that there was an attempt to mitigate ExitValues problem in https://reviews.llvm.org/D12494 that went nowhere. Were there particular issues with that approach? -- Danila From: Philip Reames [mailto:listmail at philipreames.com] Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2019 02:05 To: Danila Malyutin <Danila.Malyutin at synopsys.com>; Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov> Cc: llvm-dev

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

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

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

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/

On Thu, 2004-04-08 at 12:36, Martin Pool wrote: > On 5 Apr 2004, Donovan Baarda <abo@minkirri.apana.org.au> wrote: > > > librsync needs a whole file checksum. Without it, it silently fails for > > case 1), 3), and 4). > > Yes, a whole-file checksum should be used with it. Presumably > something stronger than md4 like SHA-1. md4 is probably good enough for most

Hi Hal, I see. So LSR could theoretically counteract undesirable Ind Var transformations but it's not implemented at the moment? I think I've managed to come up with a small reproducer that can also exhibit similar problem on x86, here it is: https://godbolt.org/z/_wxzut As you can see, when rewriteLoopExitValues is not disabled Clang generates worse code due to additional spills,

Hi, I'm setting up a new sambserver, migrating from 2.2.8a with ldap backend to 3.0.x (3.0.2a and 3.0.3pre2 tested) with openldap 2.1.26 backend and using sambaSamAccount I'm experiencing the following problem: - Roaming profiles sometimes work, sometimes not (most of the time not) and show erratic behaviour like removing the local copy (without having the DeleteRoamingCache key in

still trying to solve my domain-problems (from time to time I get 'domain controller cant be found' on a special sambaserver 2.2.3a) Why does samba complain about wrong password for user nobody ? I actually found "nobody" in smbpasswd, but I'm not sure if I put it in there and dont understand why nobody needs to be samba-user. imho nobody is the unix-account under which

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Aris Adamantiadis <aris at 0xbadc0de.be> wrote: [snip] > I've worked this week on an alternative key exchange mechanism, in > reaction to the whole NSA leaks and claims over cryptographic backdoors > and/or cracking advances. The key exchange is in my opinion the most > critical defense against passive eavesdropping attacks. > I believe

Hello, "NEWS for rsync 3.0.0" <http://rsync.samba.org/ftp/rsync/src/rsync-3.0.0-NEWS> says: "Protocol 30 now uses MD5 checksums instead of MD4." But the "rsync man page" <http://rsync.samba.org/ftp/rsync/rsync.html> does not mention MD5, but only talks about "MD4 checksum". I guess the man page is only a bit outdated? Or did I misunderstand

Are there multiple ways that Windows clients encrypt passwords? I'm seeing different behavior between two clients. On one, I can access a Samba share just fine. On the other, using the same username and password to access the same share, I get "incorrect password." Looking for the difference in Samba debug traces, I find it comes down to this: smb_password_ok: Checking SMB

Hello, Recently I've come across two instances where Induction Variable Simplification lead to noticable performance regressions. In one case, the removal of extra IV lead to the inability to reschedule instructions in a tight loop to reduce stalls. In that case, there were enough registers to spare, so using extra register for extra induction variable was preferable since it reduced