similar to: Extracting md4 hash info from rsycn

hi guys, we are using rsycn without problem but today after some problems in one of the servers, the dc tech did find the rsync is effecting in the switch where they have the server connected broadcasting all the ports in the switch at the dc????? This is what the dc tech said: "It appears that your server is broadcasting to every port on the switch that you are connected to" Any

Timo Sirainen <tss at iki.fi> wrote: > Two potential problems I see with this: > 1. If users can do any changes on the secondary server (flag changes, > saving new mails, etc), you're going to have problems syncing the > changes back (without losing any changes or causing other problems). > > 2. If users can access the secondary server via IMAP clients, the > clients

I'm considering using rsync in our data center but I'm worried about whether it will scale to the numbers and sizes we deal with. We would be moving up to a terabyte in a typical sync, consisting of about a million files. Our data mover machines are RedHat Linux Advanced Server 2.1 and all the sources and destinations are NFS mounts. The data is stored on big NFS file servers. The

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

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

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

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/

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

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

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

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

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

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! Im having a problem on my network when users try to logon. After trying to logon the follow error is generated on the log.user file. smb_password_ok: NT MD4 password check failed to correct this problem what I done was change the login password in smbpasswd for that user to the same password used on the station. (smbpasswd user ) But how to make any passwd change on the clients to

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

If the problem machines are Windows 8 or later machines, it *could *be an SMB protocol negotiation issue. Windows 8 will attempt to negotiate SMB 3.11, but samba < 4.3 will cap at SMB 3.0. SMB 3.11 support came out with Samba 4.3.x. If this is the problem, you could either disable SMB2/3 on the Windows 8 box as noted in https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2696547, or possibly consider

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()

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

On 10/01/2015 03:57 PM, David Whitney wrote: > Hi mourik...are you saying these messages in the logs are new, as in > suddenly these messages are appearing? > > What version of Samba are you running? > We're on samba 4.2.4, sernet, on wheezy, AD. Running without any issues for more than a year. I have never noticed them before, and a quick search in the logs doesn't