similar to: [Bug 3082] New: Add support for deterministically derived keys

On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 11:38:37AM +0100, Chris Green wrote: > I'm confused by the following:- > > rcfg at q957$ ssh-add -l > 256 SHA256:gl9l9m/xnYpL9P7WkL60L+FcJ0+r2c5Ci770p9VEC08 chris at q957 (ED25519) > 256 SHA256:4XDYbepg8zK43pofpQ8IGxMAXkej298a0XZHWjJTIQQ chris at q957 (ED25519) > 3072 SHA256:yeQw8xe9rrxHKLqICoXNwReZKKV9HI1UeTCf95QywXM chris at t470

Hi, On 18.10.24 13:50, Chris Green wrote: > chris$ ps -fe | grep ssh-agent > chris 2463 1530 0 12:33 ? 00:00:00 /usr/bin/ssh-agent -D -a /run/user/1000/keyring/.ssh > > but:- > > chris$ env | grep SSH > SSH_AUTH_SOCK=/run/user/1000/keyring/ssh > > So SSH_AUTH_SOCK doesn't appear to be the socket that ssh-agent thinks > it

Thanks, rsync developers, for creating such a great tool. I'm a member of a team of system administrators and integrators that use rsync with SystemImager and Cfengine to rapidly deploy and prescriptively maintain systems. Our current practices would benefit if rsync were enhanced to handle duplicate names deterministically as described in the todo list. If we were able to use rsync to

Forgot cc, the entire group. How can deterministically iterate over the uses of a variable. i.e. the uses should be any particular order that doesn't change from execution to execution of the opt tool. To make myself more clearer, here is a snippet of code that has Values reordered each time I analyze a particular piece of code(which doesn't change) with the LLVM opt tool and my LLVM

> On Feb 2, 2015, at 4:26 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: >>> >> Let?s flip it around: what?s your justification *for* weak passwords? >> > You don't need to write them down. The new rules are: 1. At least 8 characters. 2. Nothing that violates the

Hi Kaushal, I maintain a set of SSH hardening guides for various platforms, including RHEL 8. You can find them here: https://ssh-audit.com/hardening_guides.html - Joe -- Joseph S. Testa II Founder & Principal Security Consultant Positron Security On Thu, 2024-01-25 at 18:39 +0530, Kaushal Shriyan wrote: > Hi, > > I am running the below servers on Red Hat Enterprise

Guys, It seems as though the llvm system doesn't deterministically iterate over Module::iterator, or global_iterator. To make myself clearer, the iterators iterate over all the global_variables but on different llvm passes (different calls to opt -load), the iterators iterate over them in different orders. I was thinking that it has something non deterministic to do with byte code reading or

Hello, For debugging purposes, I've added a unique id member to the Value class: global_next_vuid = 0; Value::Value(..){ vuid = ++global_next_vuid; } My hope is that by looking at the vuid of a Value, I can see its vuid, set a conditional breakpoint and re-run the compiler to see who (what pass) constructed that value. Maybe I am not doing it the right way, but the above 'vuid'

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 8:33 PM, dan mihai <dnmh68 at hotmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > Yo! > For debugging purposes, I've added a unique id member to the Value class: > > global_next_vuid = 0; > Value::Value(..){ >   vuid = ++global_next_vuid; > } > > My hope is that by looking at the vuid of a Value, I can see its vuid, > set a conditional breakpoint and

Warren Young wyml at etr-usa.com Tue Feb 3 00:32:15 UTC 2015 > Are you telling me you cannot memorize a series of 8 characters that do > not violate those rules? Keep in mind the original context isn't for production computers, it's testing Fedora. Many testers do dozens of installs per week, some do dozens per day. The password requirement is pretty annoying, I for one

I mean SVN head, but it might have been fixed in 2.6 as well, I don't remember. On Jan 25, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Augustine Mathews wrote: > Thanks chris. > > Do you mean llvm 2.6 when you say mainline or something else? > > Augustine > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> > wrote: > > On Jan 26, 2010, at 7:23 AM,

The generated code is deterministic, but the global order the instructions were generated seems it is not (although the result is guaranteed to be the same). Now I think the order functions are processed might not be guaranteed. I've attached a test case, and here is what I get: ............................... (303)$ ~/bin/llvm/bin/gcc -O3 -emit-llvm try_calls_basic.2.c -c -o

Hi, I wanted to propose an IR extension that would allow us to support zero-cost exception handling for non-call operations that may trap. I wanted to start with loads and stores through a null pointer, and later we might extend this to div/rem/mod zero. This feature is obviously useful for implementing languages such as Java and Go which deterministically translate such operations into

For anyone not on the Debian mailing list, the distribution has patched FLAC against the vulnerability, with older versions. The Ubuntu distribution has done something similar. ----- Forwarded message from Sebastien Delafond <seb at debian.org> ----- Subject: [SECURITY] [DSA 3082-1] flac security update Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 14:36:27 +0100 From: Sebastien Delafond <seb at

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3087 Bug ID: 3087 Summary: Ed448 support Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 8.1p1 Hardware: Other OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: Miscellaneous Assignee: unassigned-bugs at mindrot.org

http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=748 Summary: Range check for ulog-cprange is wrong Product: iptables Version: unspecified Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: iptables AssignedTo: netfilter-buglog at lists.netfilter.org ReportedBy:

http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=758 Summary: Retry iptables command on transient failure Product: iptables Version: unspecified Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: iptables AssignedTo: netfilter-buglog at lists.netfilter.org

On Thu, December 3, 2015 11:19 am, Jonathan Billings wrote: > On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 04:46:10PM +0000, Duncan Brown wrote: >> Here is a couple of pictures, >> >> http://i.imgur.com/Vqvqn1H.jpg >> http://i.imgur.com/WQaz1j9.png >> >> Any use? > > So, both of those are just the end of the kernel call trace, > unfortunately, it doesn't show what

Hi folks. Mozilla had some issues with the MMX optimized frag_recon functions over the last days, and I was able to track the problem down. The code itself is fine, but it unfortunately it has the tendency to cause a non-deterministic compiler bug. The whole discussion is here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=474937 After thinking about the problem I've suggested to

On 25.01.24 14:09, Kaushal Shriyan wrote: > I am running the below servers on Red Hat Enterprise Linux release 8.7 > How do I enable strong KexAlgorithms, Ciphers and MACs On RHEL 8, you need to be aware that there are "crypto policies" modifying sshd's behaviour, and it would likely be the *preferred* method to inject your intended config changes *there* (unless they