[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5497BA72.90302@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 23:30:10 -0700
From: Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: can we talk about secure time?
On 21/12/14 10:51 PM, Hanno Böck wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 12:31:07 +0100
> Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de> wrote:
>
>> Some folks want to run their servers within a few milliseconds of each
>> other, and do not care so much about security or resiliency.
>
> I perfectly understand that some people need more accuracy than tlsdate
> can give. However it's probably rare, right? I don't see any reason why
> average consumer hardware (Desktop, smartphone etc.) would have any
> problem with the 1-2 sec max inaccuracy of tlsdate.
Having to reconcile multiple logs/events across widely distributed
systems, especially in high volume situations, 1-2 seconds is a deal
breaker. Or people running SCADA systems for industrial plants. Or
people that run financial systems. A lot of them care very much about
security, and require accurate time, or else there's really no point to
this all.
To say nothing of a post incident forensics response, where loose time
would make things a lot harder to figure out.
So it's not an either/or situation (care about security, or have
accurate time, sometimes we need both).
--
Kurt Seifried -- Red Hat -- Product Security -- Cloud
PGP A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
