Attacking racism does not stop racism

This year – 2016 – has to be one of the most politically divisive years in recent history. In the UK voters opted to leave the European Union, many clearly hoping to end immigration, and in the USA voters opted to elect Trump, again many hoping to end immigration. In both cases polls before the elections proved to be largely incorrect, and whats more, the principal of the silent majority seems to be the cause.

I’m not going to spend long arguing this point, but it seems clear to me that a lot of people in both countries didn’t admit how they truly felt and so also didn’t admit what they were going to vote for. After the election seemingly legitimatises how they voted they pretty much always say they hate being labelled racists and they feel like their fears and arguments are shut down as being racist. They usually end up by saying this vote means they are the majority and they are in fact not racist at all.

It is clear a majority of these voters feel ignored by the ‘establishment’ and feel that they are not represented. They are correct. The establishment has ignored them. Mainstream political parties don’t know what to do with them.

In both elections the winning slogans have been succinct and obvious: “Take back control” and “Make America great again”. They are anti-progressive rallying calls and the left-wing and centre-ground response is to call people who agree with them ‘a basket of deplorable’s’, ‘racists’, ‘sexists’, ‘homophobes’ and ‘transphobes’. They are correct. These people really are motivated by these emotions.

It is thus both true that these people are ignored and that they hold racist views. The mistake that we make is to demonise these people, to attack them and to call them racist – even if it is in fact true. Unless we’re planning on disenfranchising these people because they are racist then elections will continue to be lost and the “new right” will continue to grow – condemning them makes them more angry and more likely to vote for people like Trump who legitimatise actions which they think will make them feel better.

Recently I fell out with a close friend because his reaction to racism in America was to attack people who happened to be white – calling them racists (“all white people are racist”). Rather than engage with these people, hold civilised debate, he called white people “saltine crackers”, he accused them of having no culture, and he accused them of not having friends who weren’t white. Such a reaction is obviously completely bonkers because it does nothing to actually end racism and discrimination. It only angers people further, and emboldens them to spread their unacceptable views. Its like fighting a house fire by throwing bombs at it.

What we need to do is accept that racism is natural and very human. Instead what happens more often than not is that we assume that racism exists only because white people are ‘inherently’ racist, which is in of itself racist! The irony should be obvious. We should seek to understand racism, accept that its a perfectly normal thing for people to feel, and educate ourselves on how to not take racist actions.

It is not hard to see why we’re all capable of having racist views. Humans evolved to survive – just like every other creature on earth. As such when we interact with people who look or act significantly different to ourselves we react in fear – because that is what kept us alive for the past few million years. Its a perfectly logical response. I will call upon Star Trek to better illustrate my point:

QUARK: You never pulled a stunt like that. You’re smart enough to know that people don’t want to be reminded that you’re different. Who wants to see somebody turn into goo? I hope you don’t do that around Kira.

ODO: Why shouldn’t I?

QUARK: If she’s anything like me, she’d rather you didn’t. Don’t you get it, Odo? We humanoids are a product of millions of years of evolution. Our ancestors learned the hard way that what you don’t know might kill you. They wouldn’t have survived if they hadn’t have jumped back when they encountered a snake coiled in the muck. And now millions of years later, that instinct is still there. It’s genetic. Our tolerance to other lifeforms doesn’t extend beyond the two arm, two leg variety. I hate to break this to you, but when you’re in your natural state, you’re more than our poor old genes can handle.

ODO: So what are you saying, Quark? That the Klingons couldn’t help what they did because of their genes?

QUARK: I’m not trying to excuse what they did. I’m only telling you why it happened.

from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Season 7 Episode 14 “Chimera”

Now, some people might think Quark and I are justifying racism. What we’re doing is justifying racist feelings not actions. Feeling fear and disliking people that are different from you is normal. What matters is the actions you take based upon those feelings and logical thought. We don’t teach this though. We simply condemn racism, and in the process, confuse and anger most human beings because we’re not making it clear that is is perfectly normal and acceptable to feel fear and dislike about people who look or act differently. What is NOT acceptable is intentionally acting on those feelings.


This is the difference between childhood and adulthood – learning to accept emotions and not just acting directly on them. What we need to do is encourage people to express how they feel and take positive action rather than voting for a narcissistic sexual predator who has no problem saying we should act on our fears because… “we have no choice”.

Don’t be so dramatic! Part 1


So Britain voted to leave the European Union. The leave campaign largely based its campaign on two pillars of “there won’t be an economic impact!” and “immigration must be controlled!”. Essentially the older and less educated people voted Leave after being lied to by the leave campaign. In order to provide evidence to leave voters who even now refuse to admit their mistake I will document on this blog every so often the reality of Brexit.

We’ve had enough of experts

  • On credit ratings: The UK’s credit rating has been changed to ‘Negative’ by Moodys (one of the ‘big three’ credit agencies). “Moody’s said the referendum result would have “negative implications for the country’s medium-term growth outlook”, and it lowered the UK’s long term issuer and debt ratings to “negative” from “stable”.” Source
    Standard and Poor’s has also warned Britain’s top “AAA” credit rating is now at risk. Source
  • On the value of our currency: “Sterling also plunged, falling more than 8% against the dollar and 6% against the euro.” Source
  • On the UK stock market: FTSE100 down 3.12%. “In London the FTSE 250, which mostly comprises companies that trade in the UK, shed 7.2% to close at 16,088 points.” This was the worst slide in history. “That was the biggest daily slide for the index, and equated to £25bn being wiped off the value of its companies, according to the LSE.” Source, Source
  • On the topic of why the FTSE recovered: “”A significant number of FTSE 100 stocks ended the day in positive territory, predominantly those companies with lots of overseas earnings, which stand to benefit from a weaker pound” Source
  • On the lack of housing: “House builders were also the three biggest fallers on the FTSE 100, with Taylor Wimpey suffering a 29% slide.” Source
  • On British banks: “Major UK banks were also badly hit. Lloyds fell 21%, while Barclays and RBS both slid 18%. HSBC, which has a large Asian business, fell just 1.4%.” Source
  • On the European stock market: “European markets have been well and truly spanked, however, with the Dax in Frankfurt down 6.8% – its worst day since the financial crisis in 2008, the Cac in Paris shed 8%, Madrid fell 12%, while Milan takes the wooden spoon with a 12.5% plunge.” Source
  • On the US stock market: “Wall Street wobbled further in the last hour of trading in New York, with the Dow Jones ending more than 600 points, or 3.4%, lower at 17,400 points – the biggest one-day fall in almost five years. The S&P 500 fell 3.6% – the biggest daily slide in 10 months – while the Nasdaq slumped 4.1%. That was the tech-focused index’s worst day since 2011.” Source
  • On the price of fuek: Prices are likely to rise: ‘Retailers and the AA motoring organisation warned that petrol prices were likely to rise by 2p-3p a litre because of the pound’s fall against the dollar.’ Source
  • On growth: “BBC business correspondent Joe Lynam tells a special edition of Business Live that UBS is predicting UK economic growth will swiftly fall to zero this year. The Swiss bank forecasts that GDP will remain at zero for much of 2017, raising the strong likelihood of a recession, he says. It won’t take much – economic growth slowed to 0.4% in the first quarter of the year.” Source
  • On jobs: “Sources within Morgan Stanley have told the BBC that the bank is stepping up a process that could see up to 2,000 of its London-based investment banking staff being relocated to Dublin or Frankfurt.”  Source Airbus, which employs thousands in the UK, said: “Britain will suffer” and “Of course we will review our UK investment strategy, like everybody else will.”  Source

Its alright though, because: “Andrea Leadsom, a Leave MP, says there “just is not the evidence” of a financial meltdown hitting the UK in the wake of the vote, as predicted by some Remain campaigners.”

Lies, damn lies, and leave campaign lies

  • On spending money on the NHS instead of the EU: Farage admits that the idea of spending the ‘£350 million a week’ figure which we ‘send to the EU’ (which was proven to be a lie before the vote) will not be spent on the NHS. Source.
  • On immigration and the free movement of people: “Meanwhile, Conservative MEP and Leave campaigner Daniel Hannan told BBC Newsnight he could envisage a situation where the UK had “free movement of labour” and “From earlier on the Big Decision, Conservative MEP and Leave campaigner Dan Hannan said there was no promise to reduce immigration by leaving the European Union.” Source
  • On France moving Calais border checks back to the UK: During the campaign it was suggested by France that they would no longer honour a 2003 deal in Calais. The leave campaign said this was ‘fear mongering’. Not surprisingly within 24 hours of the Brexit vote France said they would indeed end the deal.”The British must take the consequences of their choice,” she said on Friday. Source
  • On stable government: David Cameron claimed he would stay on as Prime Minister even if he lost the referendum, and we were told by Leave campaigners that he should stay on whatever the outcome. The reality: he resigned. Source
  • On the ‘United’ Kingdom: The leave campaign assured us that there would be no second Scottish independence referendum. After Scotland voted to remain overwhelmingly the Scottish government has begun work to hold one. Source
  • On trade deals with the rest of the world: “A White House spokesman said Mr Obama “stands by what he said” about the UK going to “the back of the queue” when it comes to trade deals with the US.” Source

This of course was just the first 24 hours. Uncertainty is the order of the day.

Dear canonical: we don’t want or need ZFS

It is the late 1990s and the computer server world is dominated by enterprise UNIX operating systems – all competing with each other. Windows 2000 is not out yet and Windows NT 4 is essentially a toy that lesser mortals run on their Intel PCs which they laughingly call ‘servers’. Your company has a commercial UNIX and its called Solaris. Your UNIX is very popular and is a leading platform. Your UNIX however has some major deficiencies when it comes to storage.

IRIX – a competing proprietary UNIX – has the fantastic XFS file system which vastly out performs your own file system which is still UFS (“Unix File System” – originally developed in the early 1980s) and doesn’t even have journalling – until Solaris 7 at least (in November 1998). IRIX had XFS baked into it from 1994. IRIX also had a great volume manager – where as Solaris’ ‘SVM’ was generally regarded as terrible and was an add-on product that didn’t appear as part of Solaris itself until Solaris 8 in 2000.

It wasn’t just IRIX that was extraordinarily better in this area. AIX was ahead of both – JFS was released in 1990 and had file system features that were only just recently introduced by Microsoft with ReFS. JFS was a journaled file system – the first ever journalled file system included in an OS – as I mentioned above it took until November 1998 for Sun to catch up. AIX had a “Logical Volume Manager” (LVM) implementation as well, which again was much better than Sun’s SVM.

This disparity between Solaris and other commercial UNIX platforms did not however hold Solaris’s market share back as it perhaps should have. This was because customers using Solaris on big high-end servers would simply not use UFS, especially not between 1998 and 2005. Customers used VxFS instead – a third party file system, but one that was developed originally at AT&T’s Unix labs, one that was the core file system in another proprietary unix – HP-UX – and one that had journalling, was modern, and could actually compete against XFS and JFS. Of course customers had to buy this from Veritas, but this was a small price to pay for a decent file system and volume system (yes, it came with an alternative volume manager too – Veritas Volume Manager).

So eventually Sun realised that storage was exploding in capacity and UFS just wasn’t up to the task. They also realise that VxFS wasn’t likely to be up to the task either, and with the growing threat of Linux and Windows Server a different solution was needed – a file system to fix all the problems with UFS and leap-frog the competition. As a young man I was fortunate to work at Sun Microsystems when this was happening and I got to meet the core ZFS developers and even work in the ZFS ‘development lab’ – I worked in the same building.

Sun had a problem though – they didn’t just need a new file system. Their RAID implementation (entirely in software, Sun servers never had hardware RAID), and volume management implementations also needed to be replaced. So ZFS sought to replace all three of these components at once. Sadly it would take until 2006 for ZFS to be released into production usage on Solaris, and by then the battle for the enterprise operating system was already over. Linux and Windows had won, the commercial UNIXes had lost. Intel had won the hardware war – the commercial UNIX vendors had lost. Perhaps file systems weren’t as important as Sun had thought.

ZFS is a child of the 1990s commercial UNIX systems. It is an incredibly complicated file system that manages the entire storage stack from the disk spindles all the way up to the file system exposed to application. It can manage vast quantities of disk spindles and scale up to 16 exabytes of storage. It is however still very much a product of the 1990s Sun thinking – a file system for large, beefy all-in-one servers running hundreds of applications. The world had however moved on whilst Sun wasn’t watching.

By 2006 the dominant server platform was 1 or 2U Intel server running Linux or Windows 2003 – servers that almost universally shipped with hardware RAID controllers. High-end SAN storage arrays were king in the enterprise and ZFS wasn’t built for them at all – ZFS was designed to manage the disks directly, making it a great platform for building a SAN storage array itself! Except it wasn’t, because ZFS was still designed with a 1990s mindset. It has no clustering support, its a local file system designed for just Solaris to utilise.

The goal of ZFS to allow Solaris to compete and address vast swathes of storage that UFS and the other competing file systems could not. However by 2006 when ZFS was finally released the other file systems had caught up. They had evolved to scale to the available storage. For a short while everybody talked about how Linux needed ZFS, how Mac OS X needed ZFS, and how ZFS could even turn up in Windows. Ten years after ZFS was launched none of those things have turned out to be true.

Even more frustrating for ZFS fans is that today the dominant computing model is virtual machines and containers: lots of relatively small operating system instances utilising relatively small data sets working together. ZFS makes very little sense in this environment.

Proponents of ZFS on Linux and elsewhere said that ZFS was required because it was revolutionary and much better than what Linux had. In some cases this was true, but in the important cases it was not. Linux was then, and still now, mostly run on hardware RAID systems, had fantastic simple and reliable software RAID, a performant and simple volume manager (LVM) and a range of file system choices that scaled to what was available then and now. Linux was gifted both XFS and JFS from Solaris’ rivals – and both of which continued to develop, XFS particularity so.

Linux did lack some features of ZFS – namely efficient snapshots and data checksumming – that were important. Ten years later we can clearly see that these issues did not prevent the adoption of Linux and ZFS did not in any way save Solaris – Solaris is dying, slowly in private, away from the eyes of the press. Linux won, despite not having ZFS (or Dtrace).

So what about today, does Linux needs ZFS? Canonical thinks it does, and thinks ZFS is exciting technology – more exciting than we’ve seen in “a long time”[1]. Except it really isn’t. These are the same arguments we heard 10 years ago and yet ZFS is even less relevant today than it was a decade ago. Canonical tried to justify ZFS with a series of ‘killer’ features:

  • ‘snapshots’
    Linux already has copy on write snapshots via LVM thin provisioned pools, its in production and supported in RHEL. What’s more it supports most Linux file systems – you and choose whichever you like. If you prefer you can dump LVM and use btrfs which supports snapshots in the same way. So no, sorry canonical, this is not a killer feature of ZFS.
  • ‘copy-on-write cloning’
    ZFS clones are just writeable snapshots, it snapshots ZFS and then copies this (via COW) to create a writable clone. Well, shucks, Linux’s LVM supports this as well and has done for years. It also is a COW based system. Oh and btrfs does this too. This isn’t a killer feature of ZFS either.
  • ‘continuous integrity checking against data corruption’
    XFS has metadata-only (non-data) integrity checking too. Btrfs has full data integrity checking against data corruption. So, no, ZFS can’t claim this is a killer feature that others don’t have. It doesn’t matter anyway – this continuous integrity checking means nothing if you’re using ZFS on a hardware RAID controller or against an enterprise (or non-enterprise) storage array. It only works and guarantees anything if you’re letting ZFS manage the spindles directly. This was a product of 1990s thinking about how storage would be attached or baked into Sun’s servers. Besides, when was the last time you got data corruption? What problem is this trying to solve? I’ve never felt that Linux needs this feature, have you? This isn’t a killer feature.
  • ‘automatic repair’
    Whilst it is true that ZFS does not have to run a horrible NTFS-style chkdsk process, or a horrible ext3-style fsck process either, other file systems have progressed in this regard too. XFS has a similar automatic repair function, doesn’t ever run fsck at boot (there is no XFS fsck!), and does have an xfs_repair tool that nobody ever has to use. Its also worth pointing out that ZFS does have to have non-automatic repairs sometimes, in fact, I’ve had to do it a lot when running ZFS in production. ZFS scrub’s are…not fun, ridiculously slow and can lose files just like any file system does. I found this in production multiple times. Oh, and btrfs supports ‘automatic repair’ too. This isn’t a killer feature.
  • ‘efficient data compression’
    I think this is the only feature that has any merit in Canonical’s list, but I cannot call it a killer feature. Work is ongoing on adding compression into ext4, but nobody seems to care much about doing it. If you really want it its baked into btrfs on Linux. So no, canonical, this is not a ‘killer’ feature.

ZFS – and sadly btrfs – are both rooted in a 1990s monolithic model of servers and storage. btrfs hasn’t caught on in Linux for a variety of reasons, but most of all its because it simply isn’t needed. XFS runs rings around both in terms of performance, scales to massive volume sizes. LVM supports XFS by adding COW snapshots and clones, and even clustering if you so wanted. I believe the interesting direction in file systems is actually things like Gluster and Ceph – file systems designed with the future in mind, rather than for a server model we’re not running any more.

Canonical are targeting ZFS support for containers, saying that its the perfect fit for that. The irony is containers don’t need ZFS. Red Hat is using a LVM/devicemapper CoW based approach. CoreOS has switched away from btrfs (ZFS-style snapshots!) to overlayfs and ext4 – and apparently performance was much better. Docker can use OverlayFS as well and recommends against using ZFS.

Of course, Ubuntu suffers from NIH syndrome, and so isn’t using Docker/Atomic/rkt etc – it has created its own container technology – LXD. Perhaps it doesn’t matter then that you’re using OpenZFS – if you’re planning on using LXD (and thus ZFS) you’re ignoring the mature, established container technologies and picking a platform that is almost certainly going to be poorly supported going forward.

Life is not fair

I loathe the phrase. As a statement of fact it doesn’t really make that much sense. Life can’t be fair or unfair. Its just what it is. People rarely utter this phrase to support somebody and is not supportive anyway. More often people use this phrase as justification.  “Well, life isn’t fair”. Its a common phrase for parents to utter to their children. “Life is awful so don’t complain” seems to be the implication.

If you were to disagree with my assertion above, then logically we use the phrase “life isn’t fair” to explain that the world is not a fair place and thus logically we must expect in our lives to be treated unfairly, to be treated badly, to expect misfortune, bad luck, and for other people to not treat us justly.

Are we really saying that though? We also get told we must follow the rule of law, we must do what our teachers say, we must do what our managers say, we should treat others as we expect to be treated, we should be fair to others. Aren’t these two statements in conflict with each other? The phrase “life isn’t fair” as a justification only works if we thus teach or ‘allow’ people to be unfair to others.

I don’t believe in a “just world”. I don’t believe karma is real or that a divine entity will make adjustments to make life fair. I do believe that actions have consequences but not to a grand plan of fairness, actions and reactions are just what they are, and just happen, in many cases randomly.

Despite all of this I go about each day with a genuine, deeply felt sense that I have been treated badly, undeservedly. I do not deserve to be treated as I am. Given how much time I spend caring about everybody else, given how much effort I put into things that benefit others, its not fair, right?

Well, I believe this because I was taught that we must all be kind to each other, we must honour each other, be nice, and not be selfish. Quite frankly this is utter bullshit. I have nothing but anger and contempt for the actions of people who taught me this tripe. Its not true. The world isn’t a fair place, as they blindly would tell me when I was mistreated, but would enforce their moral views on me anyway. I’m required to care about others, not be selfish, but when others do the same to me, all that is left is an empty statement of agreement and a useless retort – life isn’t fair.

One of the most important lessons I’ve learnt through counselling is that our life is ours alone and we should not let others control us, instead, we must seek to achieve what we want and in most cases put our needs before others. All of this is in super stark contrast to what most of us are told when children, when we’re taught that we should put others first.

Life isn’t fair, so why should I act fairly all the time? Why exactly must I accept that life is shit, and yet, feel guilty if I do what I want rather than what others want? Why exactly am I expected to not do things others don’t like, or act the way others want me to act, when nobody ever does that for me?

What really bothers me is that in life other people act unfairly, and I have to accept this, because life isn’t fair, and I’m not allowed to act unfairly myself, but on top of this, I’m not even allowed to express my frustration about other peoples actions. No. I must not do this. I must be quiet, not cause a problem, and censor myself, because, after all, life isn’t fair.

In researching this blog post I read a lot of articles about fairness and the reality of the world, one of my favourites was your broken idea of fairness. I don’t agree with all of it, and I don’t have a broken idea of fairness because, as you have just read, I know the world isn’t fair. What I think is important is his Rule number one. Life is a competition. It isn’t meant to be fair, and if you believed all that crap growing up about sharing, fairness, etc, then you were gullible. Life is about getting what you want over others.

I think the most important part of the article is talking about how other peoples morality is forced onto us as children:

People like to invent moral authority. It’s why we have referees in sports games and judges in courtrooms: we have an innate sense of right and wrong, and we expect the world to comply. Our parents tell us this. Our teachers teach us this. Be a good boy, and have some candy.

But reality is indifferent. You studied hard, but you failed the exam. You worked hard, but you didn’t get promoted. You love her, but she won’t return your calls.

Life isn’t fair. But don’t let others tell you to act fairly when simultaneously justifying the world by saying it isn’t fair. Do what you want. Be you. Say it like it is, and realise that others are competing with you. Its very unlikely they will place you before them, so don’t place them before you.

Bargate security overhaul

Bargate is a web application that lets users access their files on SMB/CIFS servers within the corporate network. It thus connects to SMB/CIFS servers on behalf of the user and authenticates on their behalf as well. To do this it needs their password each time the user loads the page and thus connects to the back end SMB server.

The existing design

The existing security design of Bargate is predicated on the belief that the server should not be trusted to store the user’s password. If it stores the user’s password then any break in to the server / web application could obtain the list of stored user’s passwords. Encrypting them, whilst making an attack slightly more difficult, doesn’t solve the underlying problem since the application will need to have the decryption key stored on it in order to use them. An attacker could steal both in nearly all circumstances.

Bargate thus stores the passport in the user’s session which is client side (stored in cookies). It is encrypted first using AES 256-bit CFB, then put in the session, and the session is signed by itsdangerous before being put into a cookie for the user. The encryption/decryption key for the AES 256-bit step is stored in the Bargate configuration.

The danger in this design is:

  • The encrypted password is sent across the network on every request (even if it is over SSL)
  • The encrypted password is stored in the cookie and thus on a myriad of end user devices, for perhaps up to 30 days (depending on session lifetime)
  • If an attacker gains access to the ENCRYPT_KEY (stored on the server) it can decrypt any password stored on any end user device, and gets the user’s actual password

This design was chosen of course because storing the password on the server, with or without encryption, is even worse. It would also mean any flaws in Bargate to allow attackers to steal a user’s session would work without without first having to first compromise the end user’s device as is the case today. Today if there are any flaws like that in the code they are innocuous as the attacker won’t have the encrypted password, and thus won’t be able to access any systems.

The new design

What we want to achieve is quite simple:

  • The bargate server, if attacked, can’t be used to steal user passwords (i.e. don’t store users passwords in plain text and don’t store them encrypted if the encryption key is known by the application)
  • The end user device, if attacked, can’t be used to get the user password or even the encrypted password
  • The user’s password or encrypted password should not be sent over the wire on every request, only at log on time

The password of course has to be stored somewhere, but it does not have to be stored in plain text, and the place where it is stored does not have to have the encryption key. That is how it works today – its stored on the client which doesn’t have the encryption key – but this has several downsides. Instead the new Bargate authentication system will store the password encrypted on the server, but encrypted with a key stored in the user’s session, thus reversing the design.

This means:

  • Passwords are no longer encrypted using the same encryption key for every user, each session has a unique encryption key.
  • The end user device does not store the password in any form, which allows the deploying company/group/user to focus on server security rather than end user device security (especially important in the age of BYOD).
  • Attacking the end user’s device gives the attacker no useful information. If you get access to the per-user/session encryption key stored on the client this key only decrypts an encrypted password the client never has and never will have.
  • The encrypted password is not sent over the network on each request
  • The decryption key sent over the network on each request is itself encrypted by a key known only by the server, so it is useless to an attacker eavesdropping on the connection (if they had broken TLS).

The new design in detail

  1. The end user logs into Bargate by sending their username and password over TLS
  2. Bargate checks the username and password via LDAP, Kerberos or “SMB”
  3. Bargate generates a 32-byte (256-bit) session encryption key for the user
  4. Bargate encrypts the user’s password using the session encryption key and stores it on the server (most likely in Redis with an expiration)
  5. Bargate encrypts the session encryption key using ENCRYPT_KEY (a bargate config option) and stores it in the user’s session. Bargate does not store the session encryption key any longer.
  6. The user’s browser saves the encrypted decryption key in the browser’s cookie storage
  7. The user’s browser is redirected to view a file server
  8. The user’s browser presents the encrypted decryption key to the server as a cookie over TLS
  9. Bargate decrypts the decryption key using ENCRYPT_KEY
  10. Bargate uses the resulting decryption key to decrypt the password stored in Redis
  11. Bargate uses the decrypted password to authenticate to the SMB server on the user’s behalf

Remaining attack vectors

There are two remaining attack vectors.

  • Session hijacking
    • An attacker can still take session cookies off a client and then use them. This threat is reduced with TLS and http only cookies, but an attacker could still get to them. This is a generic problem with web applications however. Adding restrictions to lock sessions to an IP address is an option, but can be disruptive and is of limited benefit.
  • Attacker with access to both the server and client
    • If the attacker has compromised both ends, well, you know, game’s over anyway.

A replacement for nss_updatedb: nis2db

In 2011 the glibc project released version 2.15 which dropped support for using Berkley DB based database files as a source of user/group information (well, any name service switch information). Instead the “db” backend of name service switch (nss) is now provided by a simple glibc-specific db file format.

This means the nss_updatedb tool, which I have used for years to provide network-free user/group information on Linux machines, no longer works on modern Linux systems. The tool generated BDB files that glibc’s nss db module simply does not support anymore. All Linux systems using glibc 2.15 or later are affected by this change.

To restore the functionality I need, which is to pull user and group information out of NIS and place them in db files that glibc can read, I have written “nis2db” which is a really simple python script which reads from NIS and uses the “makedb” command shipped with glibc.

The tool is available now and is open source:

Britain: For the Love of God, Please Stop David Cameron

Benjamin Studebaker

On May 7 (this Thursday), Britain has a general election. I care deeply about British politics–I did my BA over there and will return to do my PhD there this fall. But more importantly, David Cameron’s government has managed the country’s economy with stunning fecklessness, and I couldn’t live with myself if I didn’t do my part to point this out.

View original post 1,605 more words