similar to: Does rsync use md4 or md5?

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, 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 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

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, 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 all! I've got a question about rsync using the MD5 algorithm. I know that rsync makes blocks of a file and then compares the checksums of each block. If the checksum is unequal the block is tranfered. Otherwise it could be that the checksum is the same but the block is different. Therefor rsync uses a 128 BIT MD5 algorithm. Now, at what filesize is it better to check the whole file

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've released version 2.6.0 of rsync. Two important things to note in the new release: 1. The default remote shell is now "ssh" unless you tell the configure you want to use something else. 2. Some bug fixes in the include/exclude code, while making things work properly, have resulted in some user-visible changes for certain wildcard strings. Read the

I, too, was disappointed with rsync's performance when no changes were required (23 minutes to verify that a system of about 3200 files was identical). I wrote a little client/server python app which does the verification, and then hands rsync the list of files to update. This reduced the optimal case compare time to under 30 seconds. Here's what it does, and forgive me if these sound

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

Hi, On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 05:27:22PM -0400, H wrote: > What is the best tool to compare file hashes in two different drives/directories such as after copying a large number of files from one drive to another? I used cp -au to copy directories, not rsync, since it is between local disks. [snip] > Are there other tools for this automatic compare where I am really looking for a list of

Hello, I was wondering if its possible to extract the checksum that rsycn creates to verify the transfer of a file was successful? Id like to store it so I can verify the files at a later time. I was thinking I could just run an md5sum prior to rsync, but then I figured if rsycn is already doing it maybe I can just copy that checksum. I have sever tb's of smaller files I need to transfer so

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 all ! I am currently trying to find a smart way to long-term-backup my data. I currently do link-dest-updates to an external hdd. However, I am concerned about data corruption in the backup or the original, i.e. corruption of the data inside the files. Thus i am wondering if there is a way to check the integrity of the backups on the external disk. i.e. to avoid data degradation for

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

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

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

Any feedback on this patch and the possibility of getting it into CVS or the patches directory? Thanks, Craig ---------- Forwarded message ---------- To: jw schultz <jw@pegasys.ws> From: Craig Barratt <cbarratt@users.sourceforge.net> cc: rsync@lists.samba.org Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 17:06:10 -0700 Subject: Re: setting checksum_seed jw schultz writes: > > > There was some