Re: [chrony-dev] Diagnosing pre-shared key authentication failure

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More chrony.tuxfamily.org/chrony-dev Archives ]

To: chrony-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [chrony-dev] Diagnosing pre-shared key authentication failure
From: Avamander <avamander@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2022 12:52:37 +0300
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=m/1Z4fcsZtgVwcH0S7ADPE1ekkdJfz7qp6qa4k+DFMw=; b=LDiBX/lQxNUYanLVxiztCh0wHxPrPykEkOD2pDfyqAqHYw3Rpbu1u3aJXbcNqVoYS/ WiUrp7ahARH+A8pcxHEil0Hv4ziEHlF7C/Li9edFZ7cTBF3Nf5ywYxe3b0IZ22EzpYiD N/51mNdaeT3MyflnPwqgdT50Sp/uXjzf47kAB4vbRFhMy3SjAxS2HlDbUr7T9KI2iaf0 OTLiyzjCy1bTFXlsfQfT41UvWZszU9L9eCJ4fBVmW812uPFoDpykzFX20khsTV6fPX3P YsVh3i98+/IiuyBd/67SXvYB5oQS53Ad+4UABEMMPJxwWjIwZ+jIiSyBpdRVNaV8jgG3 UNOA==

Fair point about logging, but why not reject it as a falseticker?

Especially in the case of having no successful measurements at all, it would pose no (additional) risk, yet would indicate communication (and it being invalid).

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [chrony-dev] Diagnosing pre-shared key authentication failure
  - From: Miroslav Lichvar

References:
- [chrony-dev] Diagnosing pre-shared key authentication failure
  - From: Avamander

Messages sorted by: [ date | thread ]
Prev by Date: [chrony-dev] Diagnosing pre-shared key authentication failure
Next by Date: Re: [chrony-dev] Diagnosing pre-shared key authentication failure
Previous by thread: [chrony-dev] Diagnosing pre-shared key authentication failure
Next by thread: Re: [chrony-dev] Diagnosing pre-shared key authentication failure

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+

http://listengine.tuxfamily.org/