QuicksearchDisclaimerThe individual owning this blog works for Oracle in Germany. The opinions expressed here are his own, are not necessarily reviewed in advance by anyone but the individual author, and neither Oracle nor any other party necessarily agrees with them.
|
Firesheep and the SSL everywhere route - Solaris and SPARC may be of helpFriday, October 29. 2010Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Don't you think these are nice considerations?
http://ianskerrett.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/dear-oracle-get-a-clue/
No sorry, I posted on the wrong section, it was meant on the last Links post...but, you did not answer my question anyway
I apologize for the missing URLs. This form stole the links when I included them into "".
See http://wiki.apache.org/httpd/NameBasedSSLVHostsWithSNI and http://www.heise.de/kiosk/archiv/ct/2009/23/174_Apache-und-SSL-Mehrere-Zertifikate-pro-IP
Yes, i'm aware of this ... however even this small blog with a more technical audience see a steady amount of traffic from system that doesn't have browsers with support for that RFC or using browsers without that capability on platforms that have browsers with such an support. I don't know how this look on sites with a non-technical audience ... however this is a blocking point for widespread usage of SNI.
No worries mate! I fully understand your point. However, there is hope that old-fashioned browsers finally die out
Moving to Solaris for the sake of security is possibly the worse possible reason, specially now with Oracle patch release cycle.
Great, you've got kssl for crypto acceleration, on the other hand it took over a year to release a fix for CVE-2010-3509 If you need crypto acceleration, most modern hardware include RNG onboard e.g the VIA C3 & C7 processors, the AMD Geode processors, the intel chipsets & CPU's, certainly OpenBSD & FreeBSD have support for most of these devices out of the box & I know for certain that OpenSSL on OpenBSD supports hardware offloading to one of these devices if it's detected by the kernel & security wise OpenBSD has had a much better track record then Solaris or Oracle has ever had. It's also fully open & free. There is also support for sun hardware, though sadly not the T3 http://www.openbsd.org/sparc64.html
You are surely aware of the fact, that a Random Number Generator is just a really, really small piece in cryptography, whereas you can fully offload crypto operations to crypto unit on the T2/T3-cores.
Furthermore: The critical patch update cycle doesn't mean that patches to fix CVE are not available before.
You can build on that framework however eg with Hi/fn crypto accelerators
€66 for the lowest entry level option. http://soekris.eu/shop/vpn_boards/vpn_1401_for_std_pci_sockets_en.html What's the cost of the entry level T3 based oracle hardware + support contract? The significance of that particular CVE # was that it was discovered November 3, 2009 & it's taken a year for the release of a patch.
You are surely aware of the fact, that the T3 accelerator plays in a completely different class. You can't compare el-cheapo acceleration at 250 MBps with acceleration capable to acclerate at a rate of two 10 GbE interfaces and more? What latency this adds, due to the fact, that you have go to the pci bus and back and then to the networking card? Sorry ... you compare apples with pears ...
The point I was trying to make was the entry level barrier was much lower & there is a solid foundation to build on, not "use a €66 card instead of a t3 based system"
> You are surely aware of the fact, that a Random Number Generator is just a really, really small piece in cryptography
AFAIK last generation of intel desktop cpus have crypto acceleration as well. They support AES encrypt/decrypt and key generation in hardware.
Joerg> a Random Number Generator is just a really, really small piece in cryptography
John> AFAIK last generation of intel desktop cpus have crypto acceleration as well. Joerg already covered this in his blog: "It isn't just an rather small extension like the additional commands in Nehalem to accelerate AES, it's a full-fledged crypto co processor. In the case of the SPARC T3 you have 16 of them and they got some significant update to accelerate more ciphers and to handle many small packets much better."
There is significant performance difference between using OpenSSL engines and KSSL for SSL protocol processing speedup, having to go through multiple layers and also because of context switches. Also, KSSL leverages network performance work done in the networking stack.
As nice as it may be that the T2 and T3 offer on-chip crypto acceleration, what use is it if there's no easy way to use it?
I've been searching for painless ways to get T2 crypto to work with OpenSSH and/or Apache, and failed. Not to mention that even the Solaris-included ssh, digest and apache don't seem to support the SSL devices...
At first, the method to use T2/T3 crypto acceleration and T1 Modular Arithmetic Unit (the crypto acceleration of T1) is clearly documented. I had no problems so far to use it just by following the docs.
SunSSH is using the Crypto Accelator since 05/09 and digest or encrypt use it as well, as both are userland programs of the SCF.
I have found lots of docs how to use the crypto cores in my own developments, but that doesn't really help me much.
Maybe SunSSH uses the crypto core, but who actually uses SunSSH in a production environment, with their nice delay in security fixes...? The Solaris-bundled openssl packages don't seem to use the crypto core, and even with digest I can't get the kernel crypto packet counters to show any signs of work. If you'd point me in the right direction or lose a few words in a separate post about that, I'd be really grateful. |
+1The LKSF bookThe book with the consolidated Less known Solaris Tutorials is available for download here
Web 2.0Contact
Networking xing.com My photos Comments about Nanosecond
Wed, 23.05.2012 00:11
I remember this being drummed
into us during Digital Design
at Uni. It's important to cons
ider it when laying out [...]
Mon, 21.05.2012 18:04
Hello Kevin, Im not surprised
with what you are seeing or ha
ve seen when attaching a SSD t
o a USB2.0. USB3.0 helps [...]
Mon, 21.05.2012 04:44
Hi Greg,
With regards to IO
PS I have seen terrible result
s using a 60GB SATA2 SSD with
USB2.0 - USB2 really cho [...]
about ZFS Dedup Internals
Sat, 19.05.2012 09:50
There is no impact to boot/imp
ort times, as the DDT is loade
d as needed ... so the pool is
imported as fast as wit [...]
Buttons![]() This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Germany License
![]() ![]() ![]() Blog Administration |