From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Wed Apr 26 11:31:29 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B860131585 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 11:31:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.363 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.363 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_MOSTLY=0.428, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kEUPt8azLY2F for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 11:31:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23379131576 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 11:31:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A94B586DB6B for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 18:31:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (fortinet.ntp.org [10.224.90.254]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 762AA86DAD2 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 03:06:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d3CWx-000Bfl-9L for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 02:18:37 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d3CWN-000BUx-O9 for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 02:17:58 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d3CUo-000BMa-96 for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 02:16:17 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d3CUD-000BJl-7U for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 02:15:38 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d3CTW-000BFL-Ju for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 02:15:03 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d3CT0-000BBr-9E for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 02:14:20 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d3CSM-000B8A-Tu for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 02:13:44 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d3CRm-000B4H-KI for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 02:13:08 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d3CRH-000AyU-5A for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 02:12:34 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d3CLz-000A6l-Ry for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 02:07:08 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d3CLY-000A3M-Is for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 02:06:39 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d3CKq-0009zn-La for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 02:06:02 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d3CKL-0009x2-S5 for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 02:05:24 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d3CJo-0009v7-Dn for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 02:04:50 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d3CJN-0009sa-PW for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 02:04:24 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d3CIp-0009qK-04 for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 02:03:49 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d3CIJ-0009nf-UY for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 02:03:21 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d3CHr-0009m8-Eq for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 02:02:48 +0000 Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com ([173.37.86.80]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d3CHP-0009ki-O2 for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 02:02:22 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=20001; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1493172127; x=1494381727; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=bqisBIfHi50ESyT872gVLWw+vQgidgTGuyIM1Zhxcwk=; b=gNQPagDjOsR3zOD/xqB4hpMSqYg1UNYczubp1j3vyAsLfP4OHC9GJOS+ iiPDuOdQflIGa25QIvBCEOdb7y8QLwhznoaoczO11nB2nLdH7uYTGC/EC dRPBMJ6l47bJVumAdOsOtSbagYCiTSvkAioQ4TeZOoKzZRl9H+Q2QepPC U=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0A7AQDccv1Y/5RdJa1cGwEBAQMBAQEJA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBgm5mYYEMB411kWWVZYIPIQGGAgKEDD8YAQIBAQEBAQEBax0LhRUBAQIDASw?= =?us-ascii?q?/ChUBCBEEAQFXCh0JAQQTCIoUm1SSL4sTAQEBAQEBBAEBAQEBAQEhhlOBXYMZh?= =?us-ascii?q?DoBAQWFewWJQZQAAY03hUWDaY13lBgBHziBBmMVRIRmAxyBY3WHCIEhgQ0BAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,242,1488844800"; d="scan'208,217";a="234477573" Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 Apr 2017 03:38:48 +0000 Received: from XCH-RTP-010.cisco.com (xch-rtp-010.cisco.com [64.101.220.150]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3O3cmRF010461 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 03:38:48 GMT Received: from xch-rtp-006.cisco.com (64.101.220.146) by XCH-RTP-010.cisco.com (64.101.220.150) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 23:38:47 -0400 Received: from xch-rtp-006.cisco.com ([64.101.220.146]) by XCH-RTP-006.cisco.com ([64.101.220.146]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 23:38:47 -0400 From: "Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer)" To: "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-08 Thread-Index: AdK66Hq55FMv0e1YRiikSoOb23VQLABw7jSg Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 03:38:47 +0000 Message-ID: <1a0e9a0d48104183b336422529790c43@XCH-RTP-006.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.98.2.52] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 10.224.90.254 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: sfluhrer@cisco.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 18:31:15 +0000 Subject: Re: [ntpwg] Comments on draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-08 X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4855747219972502033==" Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" --===============4855747219972502033== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1a0e9a0d48104183b336422529790c43XCHRTP006ciscocom_" --_000_1a0e9a0d48104183b336422529790c43XCHRTP006ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resending (as apparently the original didn't make it out...) From: Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer) Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 5:45 PM To: 'ntpwg@lists.ntp.org' Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-08 Hello, I've just reviewed draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-08, and I thought I= might raise a few comments. Now, for my background (to give context to my= comments): - I know little about the subtleties of handling time to the preci= sion that NTP does. - I do know cryptography Also, I have not been active in this group (even as a lurker); I did go thr= ough the mail archives (and didn't see much discussion). As there may be c= ontext that I'm missing, my comments may be totally off-base (or are just r= eraising issues that have already been discussed and dismissed). The draft actually looks pretty good; I'll not list the things I basically = agree with, but instead just mention the things that sound a bit off: - First off, you are using encryption to generate privacy for part= of the messages, but not the main part (the NTP header). That strikes me = (from a security standpoint) as odd. In your objectives, you said you want= ed unlinkability, but you also state (second paragraph of 8.2) that there a= re existing issues that you don't address, and hope that the client will ha= ndle it. It would make sense to me to have the protocol handle it, and not= rely on the client getting it right. Is there a reason you need the NTP h= eader to be in the clear (e.g. some middleware box expects to see it, or yo= u need the unprotected NTP format to be essentially the same as a protected= one)? As an outsider, it would appear to me that it would make more sense= to encrypt everything other than the cookie; is there a specific reason no= t to? - Key generation; the draft has both the server and the client cal= ling TLS to generating the keying data (RFC5705); then, the server puts the= keys into each cookie. From a security standpoint, this is fine; however = it does make each cookie rather large. With the standard encryption method= (SIV), each key is 32 bytes; that means that the cookie must be at least 6= 8 bytes long (and likely somewhat longer). Now, this does have the advanta= ge of being idiot proof (an incorrect implementation will not work, rather = than use an insecure key). However, to me, it would make more sense to hav= e the server select the keys, and have them send them in the NTS-KE respons= e. While this gives the server the responsibility to select the keys secur= ely, this also opens up options that allows the cookies to be much smaller;= for example, the server could select a random 16 byte value, run that thro= ugh a Key Derivation Function to generate the keys, and then encrypt that 1= 6 byte value (along with a nonce and the encryption transform) to generate = the cookies; if the server decided to do that, that might give a 24 or 28 b= yte cookie. Now, I'm not suggesting that this alternative method be mandat= ed; what I am saying is that allowing the server to select the keys will gi= ve the server the option (and, if it's happy with the 5705 method, it could= do that as well). - On a related note, you have separate S2C and C2S keys; if you us= ing the RFC5705 method, that means that both keys must be listed separately= in the cookie. Is there a specific reason not to use the same key to prot= ect both directions? The NTP header (which is integrity protected) lists w= hether this is a server-to-client or a client-to-server message, and so an = attacker doesn't gain anything by taking one message and reflecting it back= to the source (as that'll reject it as an unexpected mode); is there any o= ther vulnerability you are worried about? Again, this makes the cookies la= rger than necessary. One complication with using the same keys in both dir= ections: if you're negotiating GCM (or another AEAD algorithm that requires= nonce uniqueness), you'd also need to make sure the client and the server = use distinct nonces (e.g. the client use even nonces, the server use odd on= es); perhaps that's a complication you'd prefer not to have to address. - AEAD transforms; you allow the negotiation of any AEAD transform= from the IANA registry; however there is a potential issue; as above, some= transforms (such as GCM) disallows nonce reuse; this becomes an issue for = the server (as it doesn't keep per client state). This can be handled (e.g= . by having a global counter it uses for all clients; that would allow some= one to deduce how busy a server is; I don't believe that's secret); however= I believe it does need to be spelled out (or alternatively simply disallow= such transforms). - NTS cookie placeholders; you allow them in either the authentica= ted, or in the authenticated-and-encrypted section. Here's why that sounds= wrong: I believe that the model that the NT has is that it allows the serv= er to process the request in place; it receives the NTP message, it modifie= s it, and then sends it back to the client. That's the reason the NTP cook= ie placeholders are there; so that the server can replace them with the coo= kies (rather than allocating extra space). However, the cookies need to be= in the encrypted section; if the client places them in the authenticated-o= nly section, that means that the server needs to reorder things. It would = seem to me that it'd make more sense to insist that the NTP cookie placehol= ders be mandated to be in the encrypted region (even though we really don't= care about their privacy). Thank you for taking the time to listen to someone new to NTP... --_000_1a0e9a0d48104183b336422529790c43XCHRTP006ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Resending (as apparently= the original didn’t make it out…)

 

From: Scott Fl= uhrer (sfluhrer)
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 5:45 PM
To: 'ntpwg@lists.ntp.org'
Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-08<= /span>

 

Hello,

 

    I’ve just reviewed draft-ie= tf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-08, and I thought I might raise a few comments.&nb= sp; Now, for my background (to give context to my comments):

 

-     &= nbsp;    I know little about the subtleties of handling time= to the precision that NTP does.

-     &= nbsp;    I do know cryptography

 

Also, I have not been active in this group (even as = a lurker); I did go through the mail archives (and didn’t see much di= scussion).  As there may be context that I’m missing, my comment= s may be totally off-base (or are just reraising issues that have already been discussed and dismissed).

 

The draft actually looks pretty good; I’ll not= list the things I basically agree with, but instead just mention the thing= s that sound a bit off:

 

-     &= nbsp;    First off, you are using encryption to generate pri= vacy for part of the messages, but not the main part (the NTP header). = ; That strikes me (from a security standpoint) as odd.  In your object= ives, you said you wanted unlinkability, but you also state (second paragraph of 8.2) that there are existing issues th= at you don’t address, and hope that the client will handle it.  = It would make sense to me to have the protocol handle it, and not rely on t= he client getting it right.  Is there a reason you need the NTP header to be in the clear (e.g. some middleware box expec= ts to see it, or you need the unprotected NTP format to be essentially the = same as a protected one)?  As an outsider, it would appear to me that = it would make more sense to encrypt everything other than the cookie; is there a specific reason not to?

-     &= nbsp;    Key generation; the draft has both the server and t= he client calling TLS to generating the keying data (RFC5705); then, the se= rver puts the keys into each cookie.  From a security standpoint, this= is fine; however it does make each cookie rather large.  With the standard encryption method (SIV), each key is= 32 bytes; that means that the cookie must be at least 68 bytes long (and l= ikely somewhat longer).  Now, this does have the advantage of being id= iot proof (an incorrect implementation will not work, rather than use an insecure key).  However, to me, it would= make more sense to have the server select the keys, and have them send the= m in the NTS-KE response.  While this gives the server the responsibil= ity to select the keys securely, this also opens up options that allows the cookies to be much smaller; for example, = the server could select a random 16 byte value, run that through a Key Deri= vation Function to generate the keys, and then encrypt that 16 byte value (= along with a nonce and the encryption transform) to generate the cookies; if the server decided to do that, that= might give a 24 or 28 byte cookie.  Now, I’m not suggesting tha= t this alternative method be mandated; what I am saying is that allowing th= e server to select the keys will give the server the option (and, if it’s happy with the 5705 method, it could do tha= t as well).

-     &= nbsp;    On a related note, you have separate S2C and C2S ke= ys; if you using the RFC5705 method, that means that both keys must be list= ed separately in the cookie.  Is there a specific reason not to use th= e same key to protect both directions?  The NTP header (which is integrity protected) lists whether this is a serv= er-to-client or a client-to-server message, and so an attacker doesn’= t gain anything by taking one message and reflecting it back to the source = (as that’ll reject it as an unexpected mode); is there any other vulnerability you are worried about?  Again= , this makes the cookies larger than necessary.  One complication with= using the same keys in both directions: if you’re negotiating GCM (o= r another AEAD algorithm that requires nonce uniqueness), you’d also need to make sure the client and the server use distinct = nonces (e.g. the client use even nonces, the server use odd ones); perhaps = that’s a complication you’d prefer not to have to address.=

-     &= nbsp;    AEAD transforms; you allow the negotiation of any A= EAD transform from the IANA registry; however there is a potential issue; a= s above, some transforms (such as GCM) disallows nonce reuse; this becomes = an issue for the server (as it doesn’t keep per client state).  This can be handled (e.g. by having a global= counter it uses for all clients; that would allow someone to deduce how bu= sy a server is; I don’t believe that’s secret); however I belie= ve it does need to be spelled out (or alternatively simply disallow such transforms).

-     &= nbsp;    NTS cookie placeholders; you allow them in either t= he authenticated, or in the authenticated-and-encrypted section.  Here= ’s why that sounds wrong: I believe that the model that the NT has is= that it allows the server to process the request in place; it receives the NTP message, it modifies it, and then sends it b= ack to the client.  That’s the reason the NTP cookie placeholder= s are there; so that the server can replace them with the cookies (rather t= han allocating extra space).  However, the cookies need to be in the encrypted section; if the client places them in = the authenticated-only section, that means that the server needs to reorder= things.  It would seem to me that it’d make more sense to insis= t that the NTP cookie placeholders be mandated to be in the encrypted region (even though we really don’t care abou= t their privacy).

 

Thank you for taking the time to listen to someone n= ew to NTP…

--_000_1a0e9a0d48104183b336422529790c43XCHRTP006ciscocom_-- --===============4855747219972502033== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg --===============4855747219972502033==-- From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Fri Apr 28 22:50:09 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DD47129450 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 22:50:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.79 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jKE3407-dd8n for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 22:50:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32ADB1294C9 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 22:47:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CC7886DB74 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:47:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (fortinet.ntp.org [10.224.90.254]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97AF486DB2E for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:27:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d4KuG-000FaH-De for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:27:06 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d4Ktl-000FVH-Dl for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:26:35 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d4KtP-000FRc-3P for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:26:13 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d4Kt2-000FNx-Pa for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:25:50 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d4Ksf-000FIf-AF for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:25:27 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d4KsA-000FDW-9d for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:24:56 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d4Kre-000F9l-W8 for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:24:25 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d4KrH-000F5L-EM for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:24:01 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d4Kqn-000F0F-DK for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:23:34 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d4KqR-000EuE-32 for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:23:09 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d4Kpu-000EpS-Uk for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:22:39 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d4KpY-000Ek5-Jg for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:22:14 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d4Kp9-000EdB-Ml for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:21:49 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d4Koh-000EVt-2E for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:21:22 +0000 Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com ([173.37.142.93]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d4BJG-000Dba-HB for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 19:12:16 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5548; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1493406726; x=1494616326; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=zy2maIjghPBYgn5fS2oMFY6fbWssuCHkbuTCjL7sV8M=; b=GnVbINQIK6oMlSCPOb0nECoM3P2TbwwZEAS304NxalWYKR+gEy+c/mTu +jCMozEWppbRBWME/WDm01YD2Ce3G46sXwmcM1/e1JYQKwosmNXKfxocr cp+skUZFJUDwj+jKv9vltWeUZykwoUFarAoy5kn9/JsSSKmTxk1D7Ck1G M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0A7AQDRkgNZ/49dJa1bGwEBAQMBAQEJA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBgm5nYYETjXmiA4U3gg+KXT8YAQIBAQEBAQEBax0LhUleAYEAJgEEG4oXnxG?= =?us-ascii?q?SMosJAQEBAQYBAQEBASOGX4FejV4FnVEBgVqRKpFnlCgBHziBCm8VhzSHVIENA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,389,1488844800"; d="scan'208,217";a="419380435" Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Apr 2017 19:12:04 +0000 Received: from XCH-RTP-009.cisco.com (xch-rtp-009.cisco.com [64.101.220.149]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3SJC4uX015233 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 19:12:04 GMT Received: from xch-rtp-006.cisco.com (64.101.220.146) by XCH-RTP-009.cisco.com (64.101.220.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:12:03 -0400 Received: from xch-rtp-006.cisco.com ([64.101.220.146]) by XCH-RTP-006.cisco.com ([64.101.220.146]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:12:03 -0400 From: "Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer)" To: "ntpwg@lists.ntp.org" Thread-Topic: Minor correction on draft-aanchal4-ntp-mac Thread-Index: AdLAU1E9dX6J+WqdSQi0JQ4rO3+Kdw== Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 19:12:03 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.98.2.52] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 10.224.90.254 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: sfluhrer@cisco.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: [ntpwg] Minor correction on draft-aanchal4-ntp-mac X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3896938289857649005==" Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" --===============3896938289857649005== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_de8a5f5cd26c47de864f8efa536b6767XCHRTP006ciscocom_" --_000_de8a5f5cd26c47de864f8efa536b6767XCHRTP006ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The draft claims that 2. The other three algorithms evaluated here do not suffer from nonce reuse vulnerabilities where an adversary can recover the authentication key if the nonce is reused just once. Actually, this is not true; if you use the same nonce to MAC two different = messages with Poly1305(ChaCha20) (specifically, the RFC7539 version), an at= tacker will be able to forge (just with that nonce, however since the attac= ker gets to select the nonce, that doesn't help much). Now, this doesn't change the conclusion of the draft, which is to use CMAC = (which I agree with); I just wanted to make sure that, should you reevaluat= e things and reconsider Poly1305, that you would be aware of the issues. --_000_de8a5f5cd26c47de864f8efa536b6767XCHRTP006ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The draft claims that

 

2.  The other three algorithms evaluated here do not suf= fer from

       nonce reuse vulnerabilit= ies where an adversary can recover the

       authentication key if th= e nonce is reused just once.

 

Actually, this is not true; if you use the same nonc= e to MAC two different messages with Poly1305(ChaCha20) (specifically, the = RFC7539 version), an attacker will be able to forge (just with that nonce, = however since the attacker gets to select the nonce, that doesn’t help much).

 

Now, this doesn’t change the conclusion of the= draft, which is to use CMAC (which I agree with); I just wanted to make su= re that, should you reevaluate things and reconsider Poly1305, that you wou= ld be aware of the issues.

--_000_de8a5f5cd26c47de864f8efa536b6767XCHRTP006ciscocom_-- --===============3896938289857649005== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg --===============3896938289857649005==-- From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Fri Apr 28 22:50:33 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23C491294D8 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 22:50:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1lrFaRIm7kPj for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 22:50:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F5E712953E for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 22:48:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3194C86DB9B for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:48:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (fortinet.ntp.org [10.224.90.254]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC8C086DB00 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:34:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d4Kqb-000Ex3-AF for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:23:18 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d4KqD-000Er5-9J for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:22:54 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d4Kph-000EkI-Il for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:22:23 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d4KpB-000Ecb-Df for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:21:51 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d4Koh-000EWv-8L for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:21:21 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d4KoL-000EUl-On for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:20:59 +0000 Received: from [10.224.90.254] (helo=mail1.ntp.org) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d4Knx-000DrM-R5 for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:20:35 +0000 Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d4695-000DTl-NY for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 13:41:25 +0000 Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9340126C25; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 06:41:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "\"IETF Meeting Session Request Tool\"" To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.50.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <149338687478.2899.17870167712463294874.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 06:41:14 -0700 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 10.224.90.254 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: session_request_developers@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: [ntpwg] ntp - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 99 X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: ntp-chairs@ietf.org, ntpwg@lists.ntp.org, suresh.krishnan@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Karen O'Donoghue, a Chair of the ntp working group. --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: Network Time Protocol Area Name: Internet Area Session Requester: Karen O'Donoghue Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 2 Hours Number of Attendees: 30 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: oauth sacm saag cfrg tls trans ippm bmwg detnet People who must be present: Karen O'Donoghue Suresh Krishnan Dieter Sibold Resources Requested: Special Requests: Please schedule jointly with the tictoc wg. --------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Fri Apr 28 22:53:06 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD6711292CE for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 22:53:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.31 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.592, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WgUcDtuh4NTJ for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 22:53:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD7C31296C9 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 22:50:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lists.ntp.org (Postfix, from userid 125) id 76FB686DC1A; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:53:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 215C486DB95 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:48:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from stenn.ntp.org (fortinet.ntp.org [10.224.90.254]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C47D86DAB2 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:38:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [::1] (helo=stenn.ntp.org) by stenn.ntp.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d4Fpm-0004EA-4n; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 00:01:58 +0000 To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org From: Harlan Stenn X-Mailer: MH-E 7.4.2; nmh 1.6; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 24) Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 1.8) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 00:01:58 +0000 Message-Id: Subject: [ntpwg] Testing... X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" Just a test. -- Harlan Stenn http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member! _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg From ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sat Apr 29 05:57:40 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 868A912869B for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:57:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VbNFe8yjRBAH for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:57:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists.ntp.org (psp3.ntp.org [185.140.48.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7E53128AB0 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:57:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psp3.ntp.org (localhost.ntp.org [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DA8086DB19 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 12:57:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org Received: from mail1.ntp.org (fortinet.ntp.org [10.224.90.254]) by lists.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CD5386DADE for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 12:57:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from v-smtpgw1.han.skanova.net ([81.236.60.204]) by mail1.ntp.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d4Rvl-000GSv-O3 for ntpwg@lists.ntp.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 12:57:08 +0000 Received: from magda-gw ([90.230.119.155]) by cmsmtp with SMTP id 4Rvid7lbJklNS4Rvidbshd; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 14:56:55 +0200 Received: from [192.168.0.20] (90-230-119-155-no105.tbcn.telia.com [90.230.119.155]) by magda-gw (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3AC24548074; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 14:56:54 +0200 (CEST) To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org References: From: Magnus Danielson Message-ID: <5fa6056c-c195-f09f-0e7d-c004e4b8cf9b@rubidium.dyndns.org> Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 14:56:53 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfKoyDmMNk+b2u3kQJmaUVdPlSOiuSdpYkBVHwI9vZwMt711pZeTf2FugJzSnGpNPyg3PdUlec5Ff5yBBJ7PK8cMAS5Hk82yX1u5TPZfdAi0vmQroCkVt /N2Y92hBcCJpZz16gf8CBUWBplQsPqv70bCQP9SKnZqq5UzAI9gJvOW4 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 81.236.60.204 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: magnus@rubidium.dyndns.org X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.ntp.org) Subject: Re: [ntpwg] Testing... X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: magnus@rubidium.se Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org Sender: "ntpwg" On 04/29/2017 02:01 AM, Harlan Stenn wrote: > Just a test. > 599 73 de SA0MAD _______________________________________________ ntpwg mailing list ntpwg@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg