Demo Discussion
Forum Config Examples Contributions Vulnerabilities
  Discussion forum about ELOG, Page 56 of 805  Not logged in ELOG logo
New entries since:Thu Jan 1 01:00:00 1970
ID Date Icon Author Author Email Category OS ELOG Version Subject
  69412   Mon Nov 15 14:02:42 2021 Reply Sebastian Schenksebastian.schenk@physik.uni-halle.deBug reportWindows3.14Re: Restrict edit time = 0 behavior intended?

Hi Chris,

my old entry was related to the admin options of edit time.
The option "Admin restrict edit time" was implemented later, see ab8b98c

As a workaround you should be able to give "Restrict edit time" a ridiculous high number in the specific logbook, which should overwrite the global.
In the documentation is no rule specified for diabling global settings for specific logbooks, as far as i know.

Best wishes,
Sebastian

 

Chris Körner wrote:

Actually this is related to post 68993 from Sebastian Schenk in Jul 2019. Are there any new workarounds I may have missed?

Chris Körner wrote:

Hi,

I have set the options "Restrict edit time = 24" and "Admin restrict edit time = 0" in [global]. This way can only edit entries for 24 hours while the admin can forever. I now want a single logbook where all users have unlimited time to edit entries. However, setting "Restrict edit time = 0" in this specific logbook behaves differently to the admin setting as it simply sets the time to 0. Is this behavior intended or a bug? I guess a workaround is to specify the edit limitation not in global but in all logbooks seperately.

 

 

  69411   Mon Nov 15 11:48:25 2021 Reply Chris Körnerchris.koerner@physik.uni-halle.deBug reportWindows3.14Re: Restrict edit time = 0 behavior intended?

Actually this is related to post 68993 from Sebastian Schenk in Jul 2019. Are there any new workarounds I may have missed?

Chris Körner wrote:

Hi,

I have set the options "Restrict edit time = 24" and "Admin restrict edit time = 0" in [global]. This way can only edit entries for 24 hours while the admin can forever. I now want a single logbook where all users have unlimited time to edit entries. However, setting "Restrict edit time = 0" in this specific logbook behaves differently to the admin setting as it simply sets the time to 0. Is this behavior intended or a bug? I guess a workaround is to specify the edit limitation not in global but in all logbooks seperately.

 

  69410   Mon Nov 15 11:35:55 2021 Question Chris Körnerchris.koerner@physik.uni-halle.deBug reportWindows3.14Restrict edit time = 0 behavior intended?

Hi,

I have set the options "Restrict edit time = 24" and "Admin restrict edit time = 0" in [global]. This way can only edit entries for 24 hours while the admin can forever. I now want a single logbook where all users have unlimited time to edit entries. However, setting "Restrict edit time = 0" in this specific logbook behaves differently to the admin setting as it simply sets the time to 0. Is this behavior intended or a bug? I guess a workaround is to specify the edit limitation not in global but in all logbooks seperately.

  69409   Thu Nov 4 13:48:00 2021 Reply David Stopsdjs@star.sr.bham.ac.ukQuestionLinuxelog-3.1.4-2Re: results of security scan

Thanks, I'll try that and see what happens

 

David

Stefan Ritt wrote:

The elgod.c progarm itself is rather weak in SSL, since I just don't have time to catch up with the latest SSL enhancements. The safest you can do is to put an industry-strenth web server like Apache in front of elogd and let that server handle the SSL layer.

Stefan

David Stops wrote:

Recently central IT scanned our elog server and reported the following "vulnerabilities"

  • 42873 (1) - SSL Medium Strength Cipher Suites Supported (SWEET32)
  • 51192 (1) - SSL Certificate Cannot Be Trusted
  • 65821 (1) - SSL RC4 Cipher Suites Supported (Bar Mitzvah)
  • 85582 (1) - Web Application Potentially Vulnerable to Clickjacking

Is there any easy way of preventing these

Thanks and Best Wishes

David

 

 

  69408   Tue Nov 2 12:07:46 2021 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chQuestionLinuxelog-3.1.4-2Re: results of security scan

The elgod.c progarm itself is rather weak in SSL, since I just don't have time to catch up with the latest SSL enhancements. The safest you can do is to put an industry-strenth web server like Apache in front of elogd and let that server handle the SSL layer.

Stefan

David Stops wrote:

Recently central IT scanned our elog server and reported the following "vulnerabilities"

  • 42873 (1) - SSL Medium Strength Cipher Suites Supported (SWEET32)
  • 51192 (1) - SSL Certificate Cannot Be Trusted
  • 65821 (1) - SSL RC4 Cipher Suites Supported (Bar Mitzvah)
  • 85582 (1) - Web Application Potentially Vulnerable to Clickjacking

Is there any easy way of preventing these

Thanks and Best Wishes

David

 

  69407   Mon Nov 1 12:52:23 2021 Question David Stopsdjs@star.sr.bham.ac.ukQuestionLinuxelog-3.1.4-2results of security scan

Recently central IT scanned our elog server and reported the following "vulnerabilities"

  • 42873 (1) - SSL Medium Strength Cipher Suites Supported (SWEET32)
  • 51192 (1) - SSL Certificate Cannot Be Trusted
  • 65821 (1) - SSL RC4 Cipher Suites Supported (Bar Mitzvah)
  • 85582 (1) - Web Application Potentially Vulnerable to Clickjacking

Is there any easy way of preventing these

Thanks and Best Wishes

David

  69406   Tue Oct 26 01:21:01 2021 Question Rob Calkinsrcalkins@smu.eduQuestionLinux3.1.4While mirroring, data fields not preserved

While running two e-log books that were mirrored, I ended up with the situation of two entries with the same number/id.  The mirroring did what it said it would, increment the local logbook entry and grab the entry from the remote logbook. However, when it did, it did not preserve the fields in the log book that are specified in the config file such as "Author", "Priority", "Subject" ect.  I ended up with a very minimal log:

  69404   Mon Oct 25 13:34:06 2021 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chQuestionLinux3.1.4 Re: Too many open files - issue?

The code segements you show are from the command line tool elog.c, not the server elogd.c. The tool is called to submit a new message from the command line. Even if there would be a file not properly closed, it will be closed by the operating system once the program finishes. So no problem of too many open files there.

Rob Calkins wrote:

Has anyone had issues with having too many files open? I'll setup my server and let it go but after a while, I end up with a lot of "cannot create socket: Too many open files" errors being reported.  I have a sync to another e-log going which I suspect is part of the cause since that e-log server hasn't had this issue. I suspect that there are files being opened, going into some return loop code and then never getting closed. I'm not a C programmer but I see lines like :

fh = open(tmp_filename, O_RDONLY);
      if (fh > 0) {
         read(fh, result, size - 1);
         close(fh);
      }

      /* remove temporary file */
      remove(tmp_filename);

This looks like it opens the file but unless the remove function closes the file, it will remain open even through the file has been deleted. Maybe this isn't the correct behaviour of 'remove' and I am mistaken?

There are also parts like :

 fh = open(textfile, O_RDONLY | O_BINARY);
      if (fh < 0) {
         printf("Message file \"%s\" does not exist.\n", textfile);
         return 1;
      }

      size = (INT) lseek(fh, 0, SEEK_END);
      lseek(fh, 0, SEEK_SET);

      if (size > (INT) (sizeof(text) - 1)) {
         printf("Message file \"%s\" is too long (%zd bytes max).\n", textfile, sizeof(text));
         return 1;
      }

This looks like for the second error, it will complain that the file is too long, return an error message but not close the file and would leave it open. Is this a reasonable avenue to pursue or am I mis-reading the code?   Thanks.

 

ELOG V3.1.5-3fb85fa6