From bounces-ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive=lists.ietf.org@NetBSD.org Tue Aug 4 04:19:37 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDC2C3A701D for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 04:19:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.879 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.241, BAYES_50=0.001, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Etlu-LMqQNFq for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 04:19:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.NetBSD.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:7:2e0:81ff:fe52:9ab6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 342823A7029 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 04:19:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix, from userid 0) id 288D663B161; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 11:19:05 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: from tomts33-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts33-srv.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.107]) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D907763B111 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 11:19:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from toip41-bus.srvr.bell.ca ([67.69.240.42]) by tomts27-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.13 201-253-122-130-113-20050324) with ESMTP id <20090804074936.BQRC273.tomts27-srv.bellnexxia.net@toip41-bus.srvr.bell.ca>; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 03:49:36 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmQzAKmDd0rR4q+G/2dsb2JhbACMEL0VH4p8hAMF Received: from tofep2.bellnexxia.net (HELO smtp.bellnexxia.net) ([209.226.175.134]) by toip41-bus.srvr.bell.ca with SMTP; 04 Aug 2009 03:49:23 -0400 X-Mailer: Openwave WebEngine, version 2.8.11 (webedge20-101-194-20030622) X-Originating-IP: [200.138.197.253] From: Senate House Reply-To: jeff.morgan7777@btinternet.com To: info@bellnet.ca Subject: OurRef: FGN /SNT/STB Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 3:49:23 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20090804074936.BQRC273.tomts27-srv.bellnexxia.net@toip41-bus.srvr.bell.ca> Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@NetBSD.org List-Id: ietf-ssh Precedence: list Contact +234-80-581-82445 for claims of $900,000usd award to you in ATM CASH AWARD.Send your Names/Address/Tel/sex for claims processing. Note you are to pay 80USD for delivery via Courier. From pchimney@cctc.net Sat Aug 8 04:45:47 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 461683A69E1 for ; Sat, 8 Aug 2009 04:45:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 4.1 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, J_CHICKENPOX_74=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m21bgXXGN3ue for ; Sat, 8 Aug 2009 04:45:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailadmin.cctc.net (webmail.cctc.net [208.6.233.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A1913A69BA for ; Sat, 8 Aug 2009 04:45:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [212.116.219.162] (account pchimney@cctc.net) by mailadmin.cctc.net (CommuniGate Pro WEBUSER 5.2.11) with HTTP id 12232668; Sat, 08 Aug 2009 06:46:31 -0500 From: Motorola Company Subject: Winner X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser v5.2.11 Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2009 06:46:31 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8;format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: undisclosed-recipients:; From the online email ballot promotions held by Motorola Company,your email have been approved to claim the sum of £400,000 (Four hundred thousand pounds) . To file for claim, you are required to provide us with the information below for verification: Full Name: Mailing address: Permanent house address: Country of resident: Phone Number: Age: Sex: Occupation: Reply this email with the information for claim(motorolaprom120@yahoo.com.hk) From bounces-ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive=lists.ietf.org@NetBSD.org Thu Aug 13 08:33:25 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2ECB28C0F9 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:33:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oiuQgF9xm3er for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:33:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.NetBSD.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:7:2e0:81ff:fe52:9ab6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBD8A28C0F6 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:33:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix, from userid 0) id 1449663B15B; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:33:15 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: from mail-bw0-f215.google.com (mail-bw0-f215.google.com [209.85.218.215]) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8C9063B109 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:33:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bwz11 with SMTP id 11so661456bwz.39 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:33:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5MFHxTEILdNAKrlUDt3zAJHarzApIQkS/oEKlFebwgM=; b=PNYdvvfLz5xEu09X+RiTNJkFj1IrXtQHo1qJAfNZyR+pp8KCPp80oc22yIIDCRCu9i kqkmzP05m0WXmNJyjwWcFa6BAKmorZnateUqZouou3o8Ic0DT1Lzn87Y/wKoxYjuBL3y XX4oLt6qrRSrQHq1syIdeBwCuAoM5VOvv9MIg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=T25N3rLgIzAMjg5WUSQDsmHxHSyMVIoT997MQaXZqTTu4eAijlOHRBqa5e+KivDx32 SadVUX0S4XRyekqxKmFRwYWXVI/c5rdijwtk1kgjpISEOSSrnkYV4c79G1PCRDN1T7/O /0EVbV9Q2lH+f9gm+p8xwWU3Fta4IosQzjO60= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.38.79 with SMTP id a15mr688512bke.145.1250177592222; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:33:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:33:12 -0500 Message-ID: <79133ba50908130833u71f196b7le2aadbb11f684425@mail.gmail.com> Subject: should "want reply" responses be checked or ignored? From: Jim Wigginton To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@NetBSD.org List-Id: ietf-ssh Precedence: list >From : > It is RECOMMENDED that the reply to these messages be requested and > checked. The client SHOULD ignore these messages. Recommending SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_REQUEST responses be checked and then saying, later, that they should be ignored, seems a little contradictory. If you ignore them, you're not checking them, and if you check them, you're not ignoring them. From bounces-ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive=lists.ietf.org@NetBSD.org Thu Aug 13 10:27:00 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BDB628C151 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:27:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xMP4qk57W0Fq for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:26:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.NetBSD.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:7:2e0:81ff:fe52:9ab6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB54028C15C for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:26:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix, from userid 0) id 9127563B12A; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:26:54 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: from atreus.tartarus.org (atreus.tartarus.org [80.252.125.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AAA463B109 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:26:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from simon by atreus.tartarus.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Mbcqo-0007lI-FX; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:08:26 +0100 X-Mailer: Jed/Timber v0.2 From: Simon Tatham To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org In-Reply-To: <79133ba50908130833u71f196b7le2aadbb11f684425@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: should "want reply" responses be checked or ignored? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:08:26 +0100 Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@NetBSD.org List-Id: ietf-ssh Precedence: list > From : >> It is RECOMMENDED that the reply to these messages be requested and >> checked. The client SHOULD ignore these messages. Jim Wigginton wrote: > Recommending SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_REQUEST responses be checked and then > saying, later, that they should be ignored, seems a little > contradictory. If you ignore them, you're not checking them, and if > you check them, you're not ignoring them. I think you've misparsed. In both those sentences, "these messages" denote the SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_REQUESTs themselves, not the responses. Thus, the first sentence says that when the client sends the SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_REQUEST that starts a shell or command or subsystem, it is RECOMMENDED that they set the want_reply flag and check the reply (since the alternative is to fail to notice when the server was unable to start the requested process). The second sentence says that if the _server_ should ever send the _client_ an SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_REQUEST that asks to start a shell or command or subsystem, the client should ignore it! (Probably most relevant to people who are writing both a client and server implementation which share code, in which one might accidentally leave in the code that responds to requests and end up with the client able to respond to all sorts of inappropriate requests if a malicious server should take it into its head to send them.) -- Simon Tatham "A cynic is a person who smells flowers and immediately looks around for a coffin." From bounces-ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive=lists.ietf.org@NetBSD.org Fri Aug 14 14:44:59 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42CD23A6D27 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:44:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D9eZ6hTZogD4 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:44:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.NetBSD.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:7:2e0:81ff:fe52:9ab6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 586803A6D9F for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:44:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix, from userid 0) id CAA7B63B257; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:44:56 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: from mail-fx0-f217.google.com (mail-fx0-f217.google.com [209.85.220.217]) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 226AB63B254 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:44:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm17 with SMTP id 17so1820216fxm.13 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:44:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=lunCKw7DGMmTW6HDHRa94a4n50mTtEJ1i8+lSNiDvO8=; b=Y1gcX1IpXvsTgkgj/YGJMFjWkmtiCJtIuVpI0r0fDRfnTjBlqWzznK3jiY9NJAsGBV NXYpgdReZNQatxM43AN66n8PiwmY+9fuvc8ElYs86Ynl4jsVjS3fA78D5sp+yPqVMCAR /FqLnmj5+8nHaA+EkyJVFPVC+OPiDGouOuakk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=SS0tCAn0r9thByrGp/Psjb9W2S3dRhjO/htGsMuD+X8LkF4FwufSilgUW9B03LxLhw X+D4YdxUzg1QE+YvOuZEF1sSIOPS0nKJChc5AmYfwot+38dkkBxlQKtsT8jO+42SOs1B +LduWynLV8cSveJquVmQJYn3L7qx7GzIh6xbg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.121.18 with SMTP id f18mr656969bkr.192.1250286293852; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:44:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <79133ba50908130833u71f196b7le2aadbb11f684425@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:44:53 -0500 Message-ID: <79133ba50908141444y2a84acd3g145a89a8c002e32a@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: should "want reply" responses be checked or ignored? From: Jim Wigginton To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@NetBSD.org List-Id: ietf-ssh Precedence: list On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Simon Tatham wrote: >> From : >>> It is RECOMMENDED that the reply to these messages be requested and >>> checked. The client SHOULD ignore these messages. > > Jim Wigginton wrote: >> Recommending SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_REQUEST responses be checked and then >> saying, later, that they should be ignored, seems a little >> contradictory. If you ignore them, you're not checking them, and if >> you check them, you're not ignoring them. > > I think you've misparsed. In both those sentences, "these messages" > denote the SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_REQUESTs themselves, not the responses. Rereading it, I think you're right. > The second sentence says that if the _server_ should ever send the > _client_ an SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_REQUEST that asks to start a shell or > command or subsystem, the client should ignore it! (Probably most > relevant to people who are writing both a client and server > implementation which share code, in which one might accidentally > leave in the code that responds to requests and end up with the > client able to respond to all sorts of inappropriate requests if a > malicious server should take it into its head to send them.) Seems kinda redundant given this: 6.1. Opening a Session A session is started by sending the following message. byte SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_OPEN string "session" uint32 sender channel uint32 initial window size uint32 maximum packet size Client implementations SHOULD reject any session channel open requests to make it more difficult for a corrupt server to attack the client. Of course, redundancy isn't necessarily a bad thing. Anyway, thanks! From ajackaria@intelvision.net Sat Aug 15 07:31:51 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B1033A69D3 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:31:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 4.306 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.306 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.206, BAYES_95=3, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, J_CHICKENPOX_65=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_74=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kq6o0T-tqW53 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:31:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from intelvision.sc (mail.intelvision.net [196.46.148.19]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4E023A683F for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:31:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [212.116.219.100] (account ajackaria@intelvision.net) by email01.intelvision.sc (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 5.0.13) with HTTP id 7972198; Sat, 15 Aug 2009 18:34:38 +0400 From: Motorola Company Subject: Winner X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser v5.0.13 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 18:34:38 +0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: undisclosed-recipients:; From the online email ballot promotions held by Motorola Company,your email have been approved to claim the sum of £400,000 (Four hundred thousand pounds) . To file for claim, you are required to provide us with the information below for verification: Full Name: Mailing address: Permanent house address: Country of resident: Phone Number: Phone Number:Phone Number: Sex: Occupation: Reply this email with the information for claim(motorolaprom120@yahoo.com.hk) Message sent using Intelvision webmail http://mail.intelvision.net From bounces-ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive=lists.ietf.org@NetBSD.org Wed Aug 19 01:26:51 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D43F53A6C11 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 01:26:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 4.31 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, EMPTY_MESSAGE=1.439, MISSING_SUBJECT=1.762, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sLMNaMxbc42r for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 01:26:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.NetBSD.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:7:2e0:81ff:fe52:9ab6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D1733A683D for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 01:26:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix, from userid 0) id 5F0EE63B190; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:26:49 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: from wsv001.ssdws.net (wsv001.ssdws.net [202.94.150.131]) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7915163B185 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:26:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.10.0.104] (219-106-253-238.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp [219.106.253.238]) by wsv001.ssdws.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 229BD2451E for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:10:25 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:10:37 +0900 From: MATSUI Yuichi SystemsDesignWorks inc To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Subject: Message-Id: <20090819160951.C073.6E8C6A4@ssdws.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.44 [ja] Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@NetBSD.org List-Id: ietf-ssh Precedence: list