OpenBSD Journal

Time Flys with DragonFly [and OpenNTPD]

Contributed by phessler on from the whos-got-the-time dept.

Daniel Melameth wrote in to state: "Porting OpenNTPD over to the DragonFlyBSD system did not require any additional work as the OpenNTPD code base was designed to be very portable, and since both systems are BSD based it ran 'right out of the box' http://gobsd.com/node/149"

(Comments are closed)

Comments

  1. By Anonymous Coward (208.252.48.163) on

    There are a number of reasons we chose to import a new version of ntpd. The existing ntpd had a very bad security record.

    It's fine if you want to reinvent the wheel because you want to limit features, but don't spread FUD like this. NTP had a complete rewrite with version 4 and has a better security record than OpenSSH.

    Comments

    1. By panda (82.225.89.183) on

      This story was written by david rhodus who's related to the DragonflyBSD project, not OpenBSD or OpenNTPd teams.

    2. By Anonymous Coward (212.135.28.58) on

      November 2004, Full Disclosure notice of ipv6-related segfault which could possibly lead to DoS attack.

    3. By babcia padlina (217.17.34.35) on

      well... http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=bugtraq&m=98642418618512&w=2

    4. By Anonymous Coward (66.31.180.15) on

      I don't understand why everyone is ragging on OpenNTPD. It works for most people, and if you don't like it, use something else. What's the big deal?

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward (62.245.36.23) on

        Poor things. It must be difficult for people who've developed something over decades to find that some whoopersnappers have achieved something much simpler, more stable and more secure in just a few months. Maybe they've been exposed to all those cesium atoms in their hardware clocks for too long.

      2. By Krunch (217.136.160.178) on

        The problem seems to be that OpeNTPD pretends to be a NTP daemon while it's "just" a SNTP daemon (S stands for "simple"). This is not really a problem for most people but in some cases a full blown NTP daemon is needed. link.

        Comments

        1. By Anonymous Coward (80.42.116.139) on

          Uh, no. OpenNTPd uses elements of RFC1305 (NTPv3) for example in there implementation of algorithms that compute the delay value for NTP queries and replies in the client code. The CVS logs reference efforts to comply with various RFCs and David Mills' papers. So just because some dude with a weblog says something, doesn't mean you should take it as gospel and not check the CVS logs yourself to see that what he says just isn't true.

        2. By gwyllion (213.224.83.135) on

          Stop referring to this misleading and inaccurate analysis of Brad Knowles! Read the (very accurate) rebuttal by Darren Tucker (responsable for portable version of OpenNTPD). Henning Brauer's reponse is also nice reading material.

        3. By gwyllion (213.224.83.46) on

          Please provide a list of features/requirements lacking in OpenNTPD to comply with NTPv3 standard? The weblog of Brad Knowles does not provide such list.

Latest Articles

Credits

Copyright © - Daniel Hartmeier. All rights reserved. Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site. Contents of the archive prior to as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original deadly.org with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]