Re: [Nagios-devel] Submiting patch for nrpe

Support forum for Nagios Core, Nagios Plugins, NCPA, NRPE, NSCA, NDOUtils and more. Engage with the community of users including those using the open source solutions.
Locked
Guest

Re: [Nagios-devel] Submiting patch for nrpe

Post by Guest »

--mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Stephen Strudwick said on Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 06:01:21PM +0000:
> I dont see cpu cycles really being a problem, certainly not server
> side, possibly it could add up a bit client side where nagios is
> installed. But its just a handshake and exchange of 1k packets every 5
> mins per server.
=20
Your servers are beefier than mine (or you have way fewer clients). :)

> I wouldnt have thought it was wasted cpu cycles either, you would be
> adding an extra layer of security, but more importantly providing some
> kind of authentication lacking atm because of no certificates.
=20
Double-encrypting isn't really an extra-layer; there are some theoretical
attacks that suggest that double encryption can be harmful. No idea if it =
is
in the this particular case; however, just using OpenSSL or GnuTLS to do bo=
th
client/server authentication, and data encryption is the easiest solution.

> Anyway, im no expert on SSL/TLS, but im trying when I have spare moments
> to read as much as possible, if im wrong, try to point me in the right
> direction as to why.
=20
I think it's just more work to do both; if you are going to implement TLS, =
then
you don't need seperate blowfish.

> For me the problem atm is the lack of certificates. I would have preferred
> this approach, but I dont know enough about SSL/TLS and I didnt have the
> time to learn/experiment and implement.
>=20
> I went with blowfish because I knew I could get something
> secure, reliable and already fully tested working in a few days.

Fair enough. I don't mean to suggest that your patch isn't useful.

=46rom an admin perspective, though, the fewer distinct security mechanisms=
I
have to deal with and worry about, the better. TLS is a well known mechani=
sm
that is well understood, and there are good libraries that are well tested.

(There's a bit of a license issue with OpenSSL and GPL'd code that could be=
a
problem, but I think it just requires Ethan to put a note in the license fi=
le
saying "This is under the GPL, but you can link to OpenSSL also if you want=
.").

Okay, that's enough out of me, since I don't have a TLS patch to submit. :)

M

--mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFADwXBOtZWu2tc1lARArBoAKCEOyWYWhi/fYlYrQJtA2P7Vv5QTwCeP47y
85LOz3b7wJ1DU79VM0tt3+c=
=7XSI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+--





This post was automatically imported from historical nagios-devel mailing list archives
Original poster: [email protected]
Locked