MS-CHAPv1 (RFC2433) support has been removed from pppd(8).
This is sensible but means I can't use OpenBSD to connect to one of my client's VPNs. Unless there's another way?
OpenBSD 5.6: What will be there
21–30 of 83 posts
Re: OpenBSD 5.6: What will be there
#22I used to use OpenBSD extensively in my job because of the awesomeness of PF but later moved on to big iron F5 and Cisco gear. In this new age of NSA wiretaps and cloud based services built around advertising and tracking however, OpenBSD feels more relevant than ever. I'd like to give it a shot as a desktop again. So, who makes a modern laptop with good OpenBSD hardware compatability?
Lenovo X201 works well. Not exactly modern but a nice machine and more than adequate.
Caveat laptopor. I installed OpenBSD on my X201 just to give it a shot, and the battery life is atrocious.
Re: OpenBSD 5.6: What will be there
#23Everything 68k is gone?
Re: OpenBSD 5.6: What will be there
#24Everything 68k is gone?
Where does it say that?
Edit: If you mean mac68k then yes, but that platform was dropped after the 5.1 release. http://www.openbsd.org/mac68k.html
Re: OpenBSD 5.6: What will be there
#25MS-CHAPv1 (RFC2433) support has been removed from pppd(8). This is sensible but means I can't use OpenBSD to connect to one of my client's VPNs. Unless there's another way?
Untried, but you may be able to just recompile pppd with different options; the diff seems small.
http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.sbin/pppd/M...
Worst case scenario you'd have to restore some bits of old source (chap_ms.c and maybe the necessary md4 routines).
Re: OpenBSD 5.6: What will be there
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well I noticed today that some random hotel in Germany I was thinking of staying at was on ipv6, and it is way more popular than IE6... People want connected devices, in way more numbers than there are ipv4 addresses, and end to end connectivity is the internet.
I'd say putting mobile devices behind carrier-grade NAT goes a long way. > end to end connectivity is the internet. It was definitely the original idea of the internet, but I'd say it no longer is the reality. People want to access Google and Facebook. The vast majority of users don't need or want their device to be directly reachable from the internet but communicate through cloud services.
On the contrary, the statement seems correct.
End to end connectivity is the Internet.... and by contrast, privately addressed networks are not on the Internet but must reach it via gateways.
Reaching one another via centralized services rather than distributed federation is a problem, not a solution, in communications protocol design. See also: Everyone Hates Facebook.
Re: OpenBSD 5.6: What will be there
#27Should information like this be provided over an insecure HTTP connection?
signify(1) pubkeys for this release:
base: RWR0EANmo9nqhpPbPUZDIBcRtrVcRwQxZ8UKGWY8Ui4RHi229KFL84wV
fw: RWT4e3jpYgSeLYs62aDsUkcvHR7+so5S/Fz/++B859j61rfNVcQTRxMw
pkg: RWSPEf7Vpp2j0PTDG+eLs5L700nlqBFzEcSmHuv3ypVUEOYwso+UucXbRe: OpenBSD 5.6: What will be there
#28I wonder if I should wait for usb storage support on Octeon or if I should just buy a Soekris. It's for home, nothing big.
Re: OpenBSD 5.6: What will be there
#29I can understand not supporting tape installation (although aren't tapes still used in large, serious, high-power businesses as backup media?), but why remove FTP? Granted, it's objectively a horrible protocol, but is the FTP client code more likely to be an attack surface than the HTTP client code? If you're after security, isn't it more secure to remove all network installation and force people to use only physical…
That surprised me, too, because in 2013 I was installing from FTP. But mostly from habit.
I'm hoping it's because they are going to be using HTTPS with pinned certs to ensure you are downloading from a proper mirror. But that's hope, not actual knowledge.
Re: OpenBSD 5.6: What will be there
#30>IPv6 is now turned off on new interfaces by default. Assigning an IPv6 address will enable IPv6 on an interface. Why?
Off by default makes much sense given it is another vector to attack. If not needed then why be on and more likely to just use IPv4 over even touching IPv6.
Of the two remotely exploitable OpenBSD holes in the default install, one was from IPv6. But it was ~7 years ago, so it's weird that they waited until now to turn it off by default.