From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 5 13:01:25 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A815837B405; Mon, 5 May 2003 13:01:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ion.gank.org (ion.gank.org [198.78.66.164]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2964743F93; Mon, 5 May 2003 13:01:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from craig@xfoil.gank.org) Received: from localhost (ion.gank.org [198.78.66.164]) by ion.gank.org (GankMail) with ESMTP id 470B82CFCA; Mon, 5 May 2003 15:01:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ion.gank.org ([198.78.66.164]) by localhost (ion.gank.org [198.78.66.164]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 90114-02-4; Mon, 5 May 2003 15:01:16 -0500 (CDT) Received: from owen1492.uf.corelab.com (pix.corelab.com [12.45.169.2]) by ion.gank.org (GankMail) with ESMTP id 82FD82BBB7; Mon, 5 May 2003 15:01:16 -0500 (CDT) From: Craig Boston To: current@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <1052164783.38008.37.camel@owen1492.uf.corelab.com> References: <200305050845.h458j38c069038@grimreaper.grondar.org> <20030505121050.GC21530@madman.celabo.org> <20030505052615.R2996@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <200305051950.h45Jo5Pu026249@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <1052164783.38008.37.camel@owen1492.uf.corelab.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1052164876.38008.40.camel@owen1492.uf.corelab.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.4 Date: 05 May 2003 15:01:16 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: HEADS UP! Kerberos5/Heimdal now default! X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 20:01:26 -0000 Man, I am losing my mind today. Please disregard, stable -- meant to send to current@ Sorry for the noise On Mon, 2003-05-05 at 14:59, Craig Boston wrote: > Sorry for the dupe Garrett, forgot to copy the list...... > > > What ``extremely colorful history of ... vulnerabilities''? I can > > think of no more than five times I've had to rebuild my KDC in six > > years. > > ...and nearly every security advisory I've seen for Kerberos 5 in the > last year or two was actually for the Kerberos 4 compatibility code. > One of the reasons I always build the port with "KRB5_KRB4_COMPAT=NO". > > The only exception I can think of at the moment was the XDR/RPC buffer > overflow, which hit a LOT of software. > > Craig