ELOG Forum

I recently installed the latest Elog 2.7.8 revision 2277 after running Elog 2.7.7 revision 2246 for several months without any problems. However once I submit an entry by using the Reply command Elog crashes and Windows XP reports an error message screen. This also stops the elogd service.

I have pinpointed it down to the command "subst on reply Subject = $Subject" by removing my whole configuration file and just added the line "subst on reply Subject = $Subject" to your demo configuration file.

Elog seems to also stops the elogd service with any "subst on reply" command.

Do you have any suggestions?

Thank you,

Regards

Cliff Shaw

Thanks for reporting that problem. I finally found the bug and fixed it. I made a new elog278-2 for you to download.

66660

Wed Jan 6 22:17:49 2010

Problem with CRYPT+SSL and elog command line entries

I am in the process of setting up a new ELOG logbook. I checked out rev2280 from svn.savannah.psi.ch. I knew I wanted to encrypt passwords, so when I compiled, I used flags

USE_SSL=1

and

USE_CRYPT=1

I am running Red Hat enterprise linux 3, glibc-devel-2.3.2-95.50, openssl-devel-0.9.7a-33.25

Everything seemed to be working fine--I was able to set up logbooks using both a password file as well as write passwords and make entries to the logs. Then I tried to use the command line 'elog' to make an entry which failed to both logbooks.

/opt/elog/pro/elogd -c /opt/elog/pro/dansce_fancy.cfg -l Demo1 -w <mypassword>

Would change the password in dansce_fancy.cfg and I could make entries through the web interface, but

elog -h acouture -s -p 8081 -w <mypassword> -l Demo1 -a Author="Aaron Couture" -a Type=Routine -m Sampleinfo.txt -x -n 1

failed with

Error: Invalid user name or password

I got the same behaviour when I used a logbook with a user/password pair defined in a password file.

When I looked at the output from running elogd with the -v flag, I could see that everything was being received on the server side, but that the password did not agree with the write password in dansce_fancy.cfg

I then recompiled elog with

USE_SSL=1

USE_CRYPT=

And then the elog command line entries worked, both with write passwords and a password file (after recreating the password file and the write password). Looking at the elog.c source code, it appears that it does not know to use crypt rather then base64_encode when USE_CRYPT is true. elogd.c defined different behaviour if USE_CRYPT is defined.

Thanks,

Aaron Couture

66661

Thu Jan 7 21:22:09 2010

Re: Problem with CRYPT+SSL and elog command line entries

I Aaron Couture wrote:

I have attached a possible patch--basically pirated from elogd.c Because strlcpy needed for the crypt cares about size, do_crypt needed the size, which had not been a concern for base64_encode in elog.c As a result, base64_encode changed slightly as well. I think the implementation places a limit of 32 characters on passwords, which seemed to already be the limit in elogd.c The elog.c limit appeared to be 80 characters. I tested both SSL and SSL+CRYPT for commandline elog entries with both a logbook specific write password as well as username/password combo in a password file.

AJC

I am in the process of setting up a new ELOG logbook. I checked out rev2280 from svn.savannah.psi.ch. I knew I wanted to encrypt passwords, so when I compiled, I used flags

USE_SSL=1

and

USE_CRYPT=1

I am running Red Hat enterprise linux 3, glibc-devel-2.3.2-95.50, openssl-devel-0.9.7a-33.25

/opt/elog/pro/elogd -c /opt/elog/pro/dansce_fancy.cfg -l Demo1 -w <mypassword>

Would change the password in dansce_fancy.cfg and I could make entries through the web interface, but

elog -h acouture -s -p 8081 -w <mypassword> -l Demo1 -a Author="Aaron Couture" -a Type=Routine -m Sampleinfo.txt -x -n 1

failed with

Error: Invalid user name or password

I got the same behaviour when I used a logbook with a user/password pair defined in a password file.

I then recompiled elog with

USE_SSL=1

USE_CRYPT=

Thanks,

Aaron Couture

Attachment 1: elogc.patch

64c64
< void base64_encode(char *s, char *d)
---
> void base64_encode(unsigned char *s, unsigned char *d, int size)
66a67
>    unsigned char *p;
68c69
<    pad = 3 - strlen(s) % 3;
---
>    pad = 3 - strlen((char *) s) % 3;
70a72
>    p = d;
86a89,90
>       if (d - p >= size - 3)
>         return;
92a97,106
> void do_crypt(char *s, char *d, int size)
> {
> #ifdef HAVE_CRYPT
>    strlcpy(d, crypt(s, "el"), size);
> #else
>    base64_encode((unsigned char *) s, (unsigned char *) d, size);
> #endif
> }
> 
> 
382c396
<    char str[256], *ph, *ps;
---
>    char str[256], encrypted_passwd[32], *ph, *ps;
422,423c436,437
<       base64_encode(passwd, str);
<       sprintf(request + strlen(request), "wpwd=%s;", str);
---
>       do_crypt(passwd, encrypted_passwd, sizeof(encrypted_passwd) );
>       sprintf(request + strlen(request), "wpwd=%s;", encrypted_passwd);
439,440c453,454
<       base64_encode(upwd, str);
<       sprintf(request + strlen(request), "upwd=%s;", str);
---
>       do_crypt(upwd, encrypted_passwd, sizeof(encrypted_passwd) );
>       sprintf(request + strlen(request), "upwd=%s;", encrypted_passwd);
628c642
<    char host_name[256], boundary[80], str[80], *p, *old_encoding;
---
>    char host_name[256], boundary[80], str[80], encrypted_passwd[32], *p, *old_encoding;
801c815
<       base64_encode(upwd, str);
---
>       do_crypt(upwd, encrypted_passwd, sizeof(encrypted_passwd) );
803c817
<               "%s\r\nContent-Disposition: form-data; name=\"upwd\"\r\n\r\n%s\r\n", boundary, str);
---
>               "%s\r\nContent-Disposition: form-data; name=\"upwd\"\r\n\r\n%s\r\n", boundary, encrypted_passwd);
885,886c899,900
<       base64_encode(passwd, str);
<       sprintf(request + strlen(request), "Cookie: wpwd=%s\r\n", str);
---
>       do_crypt(passwd, encrypted_passwd, sizeof(encrypted_passwd) );
>       sprintf(request + strlen(request), "Cookie: wpwd=%s\r\n", encrypted_passwd);

66663

Fri Jan 8 18:26:56 2010

Re: Problem with CRYPT+SSL and elog command line entries

Aaron Couture wrote:

I Aaron Couture wrote:

There was some sloppiness in the original patch--__USE_XOPEN wasn't defined, but worked when elog wasn't compiled alone. Now the appropriate ifndef/define statements are in elog.c

AJC

I am in the process of setting up a new ELOG logbook. I checked out rev2280 from svn.savannah.psi.ch. I knew I wanted to encrypt passwords, so when I compiled, I used flags

USE_SSL=1

and

USE_CRYPT=1

I am running Red Hat enterprise linux 3, glibc-devel-2.3.2-95.50, openssl-devel-0.9.7a-33.25

/opt/elog/pro/elogd -c /opt/elog/pro/dansce_fancy.cfg -l Demo1 -w <mypassword>

Would change the password in dansce_fancy.cfg and I could make entries through the web interface, but

elog -h acouture -s -p 8081 -w <mypassword> -l Demo1 -a Author="Aaron Couture" -a Type=Routine -m Sampleinfo.txt -x -n 1

failed with

Error: Invalid user name or password

I got the same behaviour when I used a logbook with a user/password pair defined in a password file.

I then recompiled elog with

USE_SSL=1

USE_CRYPT=

Thanks,

Aaron Couture

Attachment 1: elogc.patch

26a27,30
> #ifndef __USE_XOPEN
> #define __USE_XOPEN             /* needed for crypt() */
> #endif
> 
64c68
< void base64_encode(char *s, char *d)
---
> void base64_encode(unsigned char *s, unsigned char *d, int size)
66a71
>    unsigned char *p;
68c73
<    pad = 3 - strlen(s) % 3;
---
>    pad = 3 - strlen((char *) s) % 3;
70a76
>    p = d;
86a93,94
>       if (d - p >= size - 3)
>         return;
92a101
> 
182a192,201
> 
> void do_crypt(char *s, char *d, int size)
> {
> #ifdef HAVE_CRYPT
>    strlcpy(d, crypt(s, "el"), size);
> #else
>    base64_encode((unsigned char *) s, (unsigned char *) d, size);
> #endif
> }
> 
382c401
<    char str[256], *ph, *ps;
---
>    char str[256], encrypted_passwd[32], *ph, *ps;
422,423c441,442
<       base64_encode(passwd, str);
<       sprintf(request + strlen(request), "wpwd=%s;", str);
---
>       do_crypt(passwd, encrypted_passwd, sizeof(encrypted_passwd) );
>       sprintf(request + strlen(request), "wpwd=%s;", encrypted_passwd);
439,440c458,459
<       base64_encode(upwd, str);
<       sprintf(request + strlen(request), "upwd=%s;", str);
---
>       do_crypt(upwd, encrypted_passwd, sizeof(encrypted_passwd) );
>       sprintf(request + strlen(request), "upwd=%s;", encrypted_passwd);
628c647
<    char host_name[256], boundary[80], str[80], *p, *old_encoding;
---
>    char host_name[256], boundary[80], str[80], encrypted_passwd[32], *p, *old_encoding;
801c820
<       base64_encode(upwd, str);
---
>       do_crypt(upwd, encrypted_passwd, sizeof(encrypted_passwd) );
803c822
<               "%s\r\nContent-Disposition: form-data; name=\"upwd\"\r\n\r\n%s\r\n", boundary, str);
---
>               "%s\r\nContent-Disposition: form-data; name=\"upwd\"\r\n\r\n%s\r\n", boundary, encrypted_passwd);
885,886c904,905
<       base64_encode(passwd, str);
<       sprintf(request + strlen(request), "Cookie: wpwd=%s\r\n", str);
---
>       do_crypt(passwd, encrypted_passwd, sizeof(encrypted_passwd) );
>       sprintf(request + strlen(request), "Cookie: wpwd=%s\r\n", encrypted_passwd);

66671

Tue Jan 12 12:31:20 2010

Re: Problem with CRYPT+SSL and elog command line entries

I Aaron Couture wrote:

Great! Thanks a lot for your patch. I appreciate if people not only come up with problems, but have already the solution. I committed your patch to the distribution, so it will be included in the next version.

- Stefan

66672

Tue Jan 12 20:03:39 2010

We noticed some elog email messages were not showing up in our inboxes at random. What we believe is happening is when a elog entry is created it is assigned a message id that the mail servers will use. If a message is edited that same message id is used and some mail servers involved will ignore the duplicate message id. We have also noticed when a elog entry is deleted the next entry created will assume the deleted entry message id and just like above the email will be ignored since it has a duplicate message id.

66673

Wed Jan 13 10:42:04 2010

george papalexis wrote:

The message ID is part of the "user data" of the email, not of the standard email header. So the mail servers "do not know" about the message ID, which make it strange that double messages are filtered. Nobody else reported this problem before. Maybe is it related to your SPAM filter? Can you check if the double entries are classified as SPAM in your case?

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 683, 684, 685 ... 805, 806, 807 Next

ELOG V3.1.5-3fb85fa6