• Packet password case insensitive or not?

    From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to All on Tue Apr 21 13:58:58 2020
    Hi All,

    I was wondering about packet passwords, are they case insensitive or not?

    FMail has always forced them to uppercase on entry in the configuration, and does a case insensitive compare on the password contained in arrived packet files.

    fts-0001.016 just says this about the password:

    password (some impls)
    eight bytes
    null padded

    "bytes": So it could be anything, including "high ascii".

    When I look at the packets I receive, there are some with lower or even mixed case passwords.
    (So it's a good thing FMail does a case insensitive compare, otherwise it wouldn't match against the configured uppercase password)

    Bye, Wilfred.

    --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
    * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
  • From Paul Quinn@3:640/1384 to Wilfred van Velzen on Tue Apr 21 22:26:53 2020
    Hi! Wilfred,

    On 21 Apr 20 13:58, you wrote to All:

    "bytes": So it could be anything, including "high ascii".

    When I look at the packets I receive, there are some with lower or
    even mixed case passwords. (So it's a good thing FMail does a case insensitive compare, otherwise it wouldn't match against the
    configured uppercase password)

    This has been unsteady 'ground' for me. What is FMail doing when it's coding the forced uppercase, after having potential mixedcase entered in the setup?

    Cheers,
    Paul.

    ... Can I have what's behind curtain #2 instead?
    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20130515
    * Origin: Quinn's Rock - Live from Paul's Xubuntu desktop! (3:640/1384)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Paul Quinn on Tue Apr 21 14:36:54 2020
    Hi Paul,

    On 2020-04-21 22:26:53, you wrote to me:

    "bytes": So it could be anything, including "high ascii".

    When I look at the packets I receive, there are some with lower or
    even mixed case passwords. (So it's a good thing FMail does a case
    insensitive compare, otherwise it wouldn't match against the
    configured uppercase password)

    This has been unsteady 'ground' for me. What is FMail doing when it's coding the forced uppercase, after having potential mixedcase entered in the setup?

    You can't enter mixed or lowercase into the configuration program, only uppercase. And when someone updates the packet password through areafix it's converted to uppercase before storing in the configuration file. So on outgoing
    packet files the packet password is always uppercase only.

    Bye, Wilfred.

    --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
    * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
  • From Nick Andre@1:229/426 to Wilfred Van Velzen on Tue Apr 21 10:19:55 2020
    On 21 Apr 20 13:58:58, Wilfred Van Velzen said the following to All:

    I was wondering about packet passwords, are they case insensitive or not?

    Packet passwords are treated case sensitive by some tossers.

    Nick

    --- Renegade vY2Ka2
    * Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Nick Andre on Tue Apr 21 16:26:02 2020
    Hi Nick,

    On 2020-04-21 10:19:55, you wrote to me:

    I was wondering about packet passwords, are they case insensitive or
    not?

    Packet passwords are treated case sensitive by some tossers.

    Do you know which ones?

    Bye, Wilfred.

    --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
    * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
  • From Alan Ianson@1:153/757 to Wilfred van Velzen on Tue Apr 21 09:47:26 2020
    Hello Wilfred,

    I was wondering about packet passwords, are they case insensitive or
    not?

    In all my experience packet, areafix and filefix passwords have been case insensitive.

    It has always been my hope that no one will write a tosser with case sensitive passwords!

    Session passwords are case sensitive but I have never seen that with packet passwords.

    Ttyl :-),
    Al

    --- GoldED+/LNX
    * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Alan Ianson on Tue Apr 21 20:39:03 2020
    Hi Alan,

    On 2020-04-21 09:47:26, you wrote to me:

    I was wondering about packet passwords, are they case insensitive or
    not?

    In all my experience packet, areafix and filefix passwords have been case insensitive.

    Packet and areafix passwords are case insensitive in FMail. But according to Nick there are tossers that are not...

    It has always been my hope that no one will write a tosser with case sensitive passwords!

    What's the problem? You can always configure the case sensitive tosser with an all uppercase (or lowercase) password to communicate with a case insensitive tosser.

    And that's what I'm trying to find out, if there could be a problem if I change
    FMails behaviour. I'm not seeing it, but I can't think of everything. ;)


    Bye, Wilfred.

    --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
    * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
  • From mark lewis@1:3634/12 to Alan Ianson on Tue Apr 21 15:18:03 2020
    Re: Packet password case insensitive or not?
    By: Alan Ianson to Wilfred van Velzen on Tue Apr 21 2020 09:47:26


    I was wondering about packet passwords, are they case insensitive or
    not?

    In all my experience packet, areafix and filefix passwords have been
    case insensitive.

    this is because traditionally, all FTN software uppercased everything ;)


    )\/(ark
    --- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux
    * Origin: SouthEast Star Mail HUB - SESTAR (1:3634/12)
  • From Nick Andre@1:229/426 to Wilfred Van Velzen on Tue Apr 21 15:50:37 2020
    On 21 Apr 20 16:26:02, Wilfred Van Velzen said the following to Nick Andre:

    Packet passwords are treated case sensitive by some tossers.

    Do you know which ones?

    Offhand... and I could be wrong... AdeptXBBS Gatekeeper, TBBS/Flame, Gecho 1.20/Pro... Possibly Viamail. I'm sure there are others. I had a downlink years ago who specifically needed a mixed-case password.

    If two Sysops cannot troubleshoot packet-password problems then thats not a tosser problem. Just remove whatever uppercase-parse code in Fmail, be done.

    Nick

    --- Renegade vY2Ka2
    * Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)
  • From Rob Swindell@1:103/705 to Wilfred van Velzen on Tue Apr 21 16:12:07 2020
    Re: Packet password case insensitive or not?
    By: Wilfred van Velzen to All on Tue Apr 21 2020 01:58 pm

    Hi All,

    I was wondering about packet passwords, are they case insensitive or not?

    FMail has always forced them to uppercase on entry in the configuration, and does a case insensitive compare on the password contained in arrived packet files.

    fts-0001.016 just says this about the password:

    password (some impls)
    eight bytes
    null padded

    "bytes": So it could be anything, including "high ascii".

    When I look at the packets I receive, there are some with lower or even mixed case passwords.
    (So it's a good thing FMail does a case insensitive compare, otherwise it wouldn't match against the configured uppercase password)

    SBBSecho has always treated packet passwords case-INsensitively. It is unfortuate that so many of the fido specifications were so badly written to begin with and the resulting ambiguities and contradictions have never been sufficiently addressed by the FTSC. Luckily, with password-protected mail sessions the norm these days, packet passwords are kind of moot and probably should just be deprecated. Doubt that'll happen though.

    digital man

    Synchronet/BBS Terminology Definition #16:
    CVS = Concurrent Versioning System
    Norco, CA WX: 70.6ЭF, 55.0% humidity, 8 mph E wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
    --- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux
    * Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)
  • From Paul Quinn@3:640/1384 to Wilfred van Velzen on Wed Apr 22 12:22:58 2020
    Hi! Wilfred,

    On 21 Apr 20 14:36, you wrote to me:

    You can't enter mixed or lowercase into the configuration program,
    only uppercase. And when someone updates the packet password through areafix it's converted to uppercase before storing in the
    configuration file. So on outgoing packet files the packet password is always uppercase only.

    Oh the horror! There are people out there that I interface with that don't know that rule and insist on setting mixedcase. Evil people. Smelly people. Ugly people...

    Cheers,
    Paul.

    ... ///\oo/\\\ There are no more bugs. ///\oo/\\\ ///\oo/\\\
    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20130515
    * Origin: Quinn's Rock - Live from Paul's Xubuntu desktop! (3:640/1384)
  • From Alan Ianson@1:153/757 to Wilfred van Velzen on Tue Apr 21 21:13:54 2020
    Hello Wilfred,

    What's the problem? You can always configure the case sensitive tosser with an all uppercase (or lowercase) password to communicate with a
    case insensitive tosser.

    It's not a problem, a PITA maybe.

    And that's what I'm trying to find out, if there could be a problem if
    I change FMails behaviour. I'm not seeing it, but I can't think of everything. ;)

    My tosser isn't case sensitive so it wouldn't be a problem for me. If a link needed special treatment I can do that as long as I know that is needed.

    From what I have read today Internet Rex is case sensitive for packet passwords. I haven't run into that but something to keep in mind.

    Ttyl :-),
    Al

    --- GoldED+/LNX
    * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)
  • From Alan Ianson@1:153/757 to mark lewis on Tue Apr 21 21:19:40 2020
    Hello mark,

    In all my experience packet, areafix and filefix passwords have
    been case insensitive.

    this is because traditionally, all FTN software uppercased everything
    ;)

    I read that Internet Rex is case sensitive with packet passwords.

    I have always entered passwords in my own config in upper case.. maybe that's why I never saw any issues. I can enter the password in lower or mixed case if needed by a link but no one has ever asked me to do this.. so far.. ;)

    Ttyl :-),
    Al

    --- GoldED+/LNX
    * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)
  • From Tommi Koivula@2:221/360 to Nick Andre on Wed Apr 22 09:45:54 2020

    Hello Nick!

    Tuesday April 21 2020 15:50, Nick Andre wrote to Wilfred Van Velzen:

    Packet passwords are treated case sensitive by some tossers.

    Do you know which ones?

    Offhand... and I could be wrong... AdeptXBBS Gatekeeper, TBBS/Flame,
    Gecho 1.20/Pro...

    GEcho is a funny thing, GSetup forces uppercase Areamgr password but accepts mixedcase pkt password.

    i New entry ================================================== Node manager
    |
    | Node address
    | SysOp name SysOp
    | Route via
    | Packet password Zz######
    | +-Check password Auto
    | AreaMgr password ииииииииииииииии

    'Tommi

    --- GoldED+/EMX 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: ---------------------------------->> (2:221/360)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Nick Andre on Wed Apr 22 09:46:12 2020
    Hi Nick,

    On 2020-04-21 15:50:37, you wrote to me:

    Packet passwords are treated case sensitive by some tossers.

    Do you know which ones?

    Offhand... and I could be wrong... AdeptXBBS Gatekeeper, TBBS/Flame, Gecho 1.20/Pro... Possibly Viamail. I'm sure there are others.

    That's an obscure list. ;)

    Never heard of the first two, are they still used?

    I had a downlink years ago who specifically needed a mixed-case
    password.

    Was that a technical necessity? I can hardly imagine that.

    If two Sysops cannot troubleshoot packet-password problems then thats
    not a tosser problem.

    Any combination of case (in)sensitive tossers should be able to communicate, I think. Unless a tosser sends out packet passwords in one case, and expects to receive it in the other case. But I would call that a bug. ;)

    Just remove whatever uppercase-parse code in Fmail, be done.

    I'm leaning in that direction...

    Bye, Wilfred.

    --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
    * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Rob Swindell on Wed Apr 22 09:52:47 2020
    Hi Rob,

    On 2020-04-21 16:12:07, you wrote to me:

    SBBSecho has always treated packet passwords case-INsensitively. It is unfortuate that so many of the fido specifications were so badly
    written to begin with and the resulting ambiguities and contradictions have never been sufficiently addressed by the FTSC.

    There is no ambiguity for packet password case sensitivity. It's just not specified, so anything goes...

    Luckily, with password-protected mail sessions the norm these days,
    packet passwords are kind of moot and probably should just be
    deprecated. Doubt that'll happen though.

    I don't agree here. Packet passwords provide an extra layer of security. For instance without it, anyone can drop a .pkt file in your insecure inbound with a falsified source address and echomail in it. If you process .pkt files from your inbound automatically, it will get tossed, if there is no packet password agreeded upon for the falsified source...

    Bye, Wilfred.

    --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
    * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Paul Quinn on Wed Apr 22 10:17:59 2020
    Hi Paul,

    On 2020-04-22 12:22:58, you wrote to me:

    You can't enter mixed or lowercase into the configuration program,
    only uppercase. And when someone updates the packet password through
    areafix it's converted to uppercase before storing in the
    configuration file. So on outgoing packet files the packet password is
    always uppercase only.

    Oh the horror! There are people out there that I interface with that
    don't
    know that rule and insist on setting mixedcase. Evil people. Smelly people. Ugly people...

    On FMails side that's not a problem because it checks the passwords case insensitive.

    How they deal with it on their side is their problem. ;)

    Bye, Wilfred.

    --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
    * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Alan Ianson on Wed Apr 22 10:21:01 2020
    Hi Alan,

    On 2020-04-21 21:13:54, you wrote to me:

    What's the problem? You can always configure the case sensitive
    tosser with an all uppercase (or lowercase) password to communicate
    with a case insensitive tosser.

    It's not a problem, a PITA maybe.

    Why a PITA? You have to configure it once. Check that it works and be done with
    it...

    And that's what I'm trying to find out, if there could be a problem
    if I change FMails behaviour. I'm not seeing it, but I can't think of
    everything. ;)

    My tosser isn't case sensitive so it wouldn't be a problem for me. If a link needed special treatment I can do that as long as I know that is needed.

    Indeed.

    From what I have read today Internet Rex is case sensitive for packet passwords. I haven't run into that but something to keep in mind.

    Indeed.

    Bye, Wilfred.

    --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
    * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
  • From Oli@2:280/464.47 to Wilfred van Velzen on Wed Apr 22 10:14:54 2020
    21 Apr 20 20:39, you wrote to Alan Ianson:

    I was wondering about packet passwords, are they case
    insensitive or not?

    In all my experience packet, areafix and filefix passwords have
    been case insensitive.

    I remember that we always used uppercase packet passwords. I assumed that passwords are case insensitive, but I think I never tried to use lowercase in the config.

    Packet and areafix passwords are case insensitive in FMail. But
    according to Nick there are tossers that are not...

    Crashmail and Squish use stricmp() for the packet passwords -> case insensitive.

    How does stricmp compare strings with high ascii characters?

    It has always been my hope that no one will write a tosser with
    case sensitive passwords!

    What's the problem? You can always configure the case sensitive tosser with an all uppercase (or lowercase) password to communicate with a
    case insensitive tosser.

    Right, uppercase passwords should work with every tosser.

    And that's what I'm trying to find out, if there could be a problem if
    I change FMails behaviour. I'm not seeing it, but I can't think of everything. ;)

    I would say in theory there should be less problems, if FMail were able to send
    mixed case passwords.

    Maybe we should use hex notation for the passwords, so all 255 characters can be used for better security ;).



    * Origin: kakistocracy (2:280/464.47)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Oli on Wed Apr 22 10:33:14 2020
    Hi Oli,

    On 2020-04-22 10:14:54, you wrote to me:

    I remember that we always used uppercase packet passwords. I assumed
    that passwords are case insensitive, but I think I never tried to use lowercase in the config.

    There seems to be different kind of implementations in different tossers...

    Packet and areafix passwords are case insensitive in FMail. But
    according to Nick there are tossers that are not...

    Crashmail and Squish use stricmp() for the packet passwords -> case insensitive.

    FMail currently is too.

    How does stricmp compare strings with high ascii characters?

    On linux that depends on the locale that's set on the computer. So you can get different results on different computers.

    So another good reason to use case sensitive passwords.

    And that's what I'm trying to find out, if there could be a problem
    if I change FMails behaviour. I'm not seeing it, but I can't think of
    everything. ;)

    I would say in theory there should be less problems, if FMail were able to send mixed case passwords.

    It becomes more flexible what you can use. But maybe needs a bit more tweaking to get it right when talking to a case insensitive tosser.

    Maybe we should use hex notation for the passwords, so all 255
    characters can be used for better security ;).

    FTS-0001 Doesn't rule that out. (It just says 8 bytes for the packet password).
    ;)

    Bye, Wilfred.

    --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
    * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
  • From Oli@2:280/464.47 to Wilfred van Velzen on Wed Apr 22 10:44:22 2020
    I was wondering about packet passwords, are they case insensitive or not?

    When I look at the packets I receive, there are some with lower or even
    mixed case passwords.

    Crashmail sends the (mixed-case) password string exactly as configured, no conversion to uppercase.


    * Origin: (2:280/464.47)
  • From Alan Ianson@1:153/757 to Wilfred van Velzen on Wed Apr 22 01:47:08 2020
    Hello Wilfred,

    Why a PITA?

    I've had issues with session passwords because folks has told me to use a password (lower case) but they enter it in their setup in upper case. That's a PITA.

    You have to configure it once. Check that it works and be done with
    it...

    As long as folks understand the need for this at setup it should pose no problems.

    Ttyl :-),
    Al

    --- GoldED+/LNX
    * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)
  • From Tommi Koivula@2:221/360 to Oli on Wed Apr 22 11:57:14 2020
    Hello Oli!

    Wednesday April 22 2020 10:44, Oli wrote to Wilfred van Velzen:

    When I look at the packets I receive, there are some with lower or even
    mixed case passwords.

    Crashmail sends the (mixed-case) password string exactly as configured, no conversion to uppercase.

    GEcho does the same.

    === Begin OS/2 Clipboard ===

    Pkt-Name: 63C3463A.PKT
    OrigAddr: 2:221/360.0
    DestAddr: 2:221/1234.0
    pkt created: Wed Apr 22 12:54:48 2020
    pkt Password: Test123
    prodCode: 0061
    prodRevision 1.20
    -+--------------------------------------
    Msg: 221/360 -> 221/1234

    === End OS/2 Clipboard ===

    'Tommi

    --- GoldED+/EMX 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: ---------------------------------->> (2:221/360)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Oli on Wed Apr 22 11:25:57 2020
    Hi Oli,

    On 2020-04-22 10:44:22, you wrote to me:

    I was wondering about packet passwords, are they case insensitive or
    not?

    When I look at the packets I receive, there are some with lower or
    even mixed case passwords.

    Crashmail sends the (mixed-case) password string exactly as configured, no conversion to uppercase.

    Good to know...

    Bye, Wilfred.

    --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
    * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Alan Ianson on Wed Apr 22 11:26:58 2020
    Hi Alan,

    On 2020-04-22 01:47:08, you wrote to me:

    Why a PITA?

    I've had issues with session passwords because folks has told me to use a password (lower case) but they enter it in their setup in upper case. That's a PITA.

    Well there is no cure for stupidity. ;)

    But that's not a reason to limit security and do case insensitive compares on passwords.

    You have to configure it once. Check that it works and be done with
    it...

    As long as folks understand the need for this at setup it should pose no problems.

    That's what I mean...

    Bye, Wilfred.

    --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
    * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
  • From Paul Quinn@3:640/1384 to Wilfred van Velzen on Wed Apr 22 19:37:05 2020
    Hi! Wilfred,

    On 22 Apr 20 10:17, you wrote to me:

    On FMails side that's not a problem because it checks the passwords
    case insensitive.
    How they deal with it on their side is their problem. ;)

    Not a problem. I recall having trouble with -some- other packages but I cannot
    cite anything with certainty. Go ahead and make a new rule and I'll toe the line.

    Cheers,
    Paul.

    ... Blonde Borgs all have the same fun.
    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20130515
    * Origin: Quinn's Rock - Live from Paul's Xubuntu desktop! (3:640/1384)
  • From Oli@2:280/464.47 to Alan Ianson on Wed Apr 22 12:35:24 2020
    22 Apr 20 01:47, you wrote to Wilfred van Velzen:

    Hello Wilfred,

    Why a PITA?

    I've had issues with session passwords because folks has told me to
    use a password (lower case) but they enter it in their setup in upper case. That's a PITA.

    And they were using the case sensitive tosser?


    * Origin: kakistocracy (2:280/464.47)
  • From Nick Andre@1:229/426 to Wilfred Van Velzen on Wed Apr 22 08:29:48 2020
    On 22 Apr 20 09:46:12, Wilfred Van Velzen said the following to Nick Andre:

    Offhand... and I could be wrong... AdeptXBBS Gatekeeper, TBBS/Flame, G 1.20/Pro... Possibly Viamail. I'm sure there are others.

    That's an obscure list. ;)
    Never heard of the first two, are they still used?

    They are 90's products. I doubt anyone uses them anymore. But you asked...

    I had a downlink years ago who specifically needed a mixed-case password.

    Was that a technical necessity? I can hardly imagine that.

    I can't remember but I seriously doubt it.

    Nick

    --- Renegade vY2Ka2
    * Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Nick Andre on Wed Apr 22 15:05:58 2020
    Hi Nick,

    On 2020-04-22 08:29:48, you wrote to me:

    Offhand... and I could be wrong... AdeptXBBS Gatekeeper,
    TBBS/Flame, G
    1.20/Pro... Possibly Viamail. I'm sure there are others.

    That's an obscure list. ;)
    Never heard of the first two, are they still used?

    They are 90's products. I doubt anyone uses them anymore. But you asked...

    Well, yes, it's good to know there already were case sensitive tossers out there in the past...

    Bye, Wilfred.

    --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
    * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
  • From Alan Ianson@1:153/757 to Oli on Wed Apr 22 09:58:04 2020
    Hello Oli,

    I've had issues with session passwords because folks has told me
    to use a password (lower case) but they enter it in their setup
    in upper case. That's a PITA.

    And they were using the case sensitive tosser?

    Not that I know of. I have never run into a case sensitive tosser, at least not
    that I know of.

    In the case of my own tosser HPT, I don't think it is case sensitive. It is happy with upper, lower or mixed case. That's an assumption on my part I have never tested. It's been my habit to enter passwords in upper case and that has never caused problems or confusion, at least not for me.

    If I enter a packet password in my config in mixed case it writes that password
    in the .pkt in mixed case but I don't think it checks password case senitively.
    Given a bit of spare time I am going to have to test that out to be sure given what I have read in the last few days.. :)

    Ttyl :-),
    Al

    --- GoldED+/LNX
    * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)
  • From mark lewis@1:3634/12 to Wilfred van Velzen on Wed Apr 22 14:25:45 2020
    Re: Re: Pssword ord ord case insensitive or not?
    By: Wilfred van Velzen to Alan Ianson on Wed Apr 22 2020 11:26:58


    Well there is no cure for stupidity. ;)

    sure there is but it isn't very nice or generally acceptible...

    the cure? hot lead at high velocity ;) O:)


    )\/(ark
    --- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux
    * Origin: SouthEast Star Mail HUB - SESTAR (1:3634/12)
  • From Oli@2:280/464.47 to Alan Ianson on Wed Apr 22 21:37:31 2020
    22 Apr 20 09:58, you wrote to me:

    Hello Oli,

    I've had issues with session passwords because folks has told me
    to use a password (lower case) but they enter it in their setup
    in upper case. That's a PITA.

    And they were using the case sensitive tosser?

    Not that I know of. I have never run into a case sensitive tosser, at least not that I know of.

    I missed the "session" before the "password" and thought you were still talking
    about packet passwords. Now I get it.

    I wonder why we still use packet passwords. Why not create a inbound filebox for every node/point that calls and rely on the session password? Is there any (open source) mailer or tosser that support inbound fileboxes?



    * Origin: kakistocracy (2:280/464.47)
  • From mark lewis@1:3634/12 to Oli on Wed Apr 22 15:57:16 2020
    Re: Pssword ord ord case insensitive or not?
    By: Oli to Alan Ianson on Wed Apr 22 2020 21:37:31


    I wonder why we still use packet passwords.

    at one time, fidonet has had some folks that like to ""play games""... one of their games was to take messages from another (adult-oriented) network, replace
    their headers with message headers from legitimate fidonet messages, and then drop those bogus messages off in unsuspecting systems inbounds... they generally used someone else's node number for these injections... at that time,
    packet passwords were not as widely used and figuring out how to get a system's
    session password was (and still is) fairly easy to do... one of the suspected goals of these pranksters(??) was to try to increase security in fidonet... so the victim systems, saw the mail from a supposedly legitimate link and tossed it... the result was chaos...

    Why not create a inbound filebox for every node/point that calls
    and rely on the session password?

    two layers of protection are better than one... at least, that's the current thought... witness today's internet logins using a password as well as an authentication token sent via SMS or similar...

    Is there any (open source) mailer or tosser that support inbound fileboxes?

    binkd supports inbound fileboxes... i'm not sure about tossers, though...

    when i was using inbound fileboxes on my previous system, i had a script that located inbound traffic in the inbound fileboxes and moved it to a central processing directory where the tosser could find it... in addition to moving the traffic, the script did some additional processing to attempt to validate the traffic as being authentic before the tosser was allowed to process it... the traffic was also archived for later analysis if needed... it wasn't really pretty but it worked ;)


    )\/(ark
    --- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux
    * Origin: SouthEast Star Mail HUB - SESTAR (1:3634/12)
  • From Rob Swindell@1:103/705 to Wilfred van Velzen on Wed Apr 22 13:15:19 2020
    Re: Re: Packet password case insensitive or not?
    By: Wilfred van Velzen to Rob Swindell on Wed Apr 22 2020 09:52 am

    Hi Rob,

    On 2020-04-21 16:12:07, you wrote to me:

    SBBSecho has always treated packet passwords case-INsensitively. It is unfortuate that so many of the fido specifications were so badly written to begin with and the resulting ambiguities and contradictions have never been sufficiently addressed by the FTSC.

    There is no ambiguity for packet password case sensitivity. It's just not specified, so anything goes...

    Yeah, that's the definition of ambiguity.

    Luckily, with password-protected mail sessions the norm these days, packet passwords are kind of moot and probably should just be deprecated. Doubt that'll happen though.

    I don't agree here. Packet passwords provide an extra layer of security. For instance without it, anyone can drop a .pkt file in your insecure inbound with a falsified source address and echomail in it. If you process .pkt files from your inbound automatically, it will get tossed, if there is no packet password agreeded upon for the falsified source...

    SBBSecho will not import echomail from an insecure inbound directory.

    digital man

    This Is Spinal Tap quote #14:
    The Boston gig has been cancelled. [Don't] worry, it's not a big college town. Norco, CA WX: 81.9ЭF, 43.0% humidity, 6 mph ESE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs --- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux
    * Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)
  • From Nick Andre@1:229/426 to Oli on Wed Apr 22 16:01:00 2020
    On 22 Apr 20 21:37:31, Oli said the following to Alan Ianson:

    I wonder why we still use packet passwords. Why not create a inbound filebox for every node/point that calls and rely on the session password? Is there a (open source) mailer or tosser that support inbound fileboxes?

    Because non-passworded Echomail packets are a tad bit more suspicious than non-passworded Netmail packets.

    Nick

    --- Renegade vY2Ka2
    * Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)
  • From Rob Swindell@1:103/705 to mark lewis on Wed Apr 22 13:21:23 2020
    Re: Pssword ord ord case insensitive or not?
    By: mark lewis to Oli on Wed Apr 22 2020 03:57 pm

    binkd supports inbound fileboxes... i'm not sure about tossers, though...

    SBBSecho supports inbound fileboxes. Not sure if any one has actually used/tested them yet.

    digital man

    This Is Spinal Tap quote #41:
    Ian Faith: It say's "Memphis show cancelled due to lack of advertising funds." Norco, CA WX: 82.4ЭF, 39.0% humidity, 5 mph ENE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs --- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux
    * Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)
  • From Alan Ianson@1:153/757 to Oli on Wed Apr 22 13:10:28 2020
    Hello Oli,

    I wonder why we still use packet passwords. Why not create a inbound filebox for every node/point that calls and rely on the session
    password? Is there any (open source) mailer or tosser that support
    inbound fileboxes?

    I use binkd and it does support in and out fileboxes. I have only ever used an outbound filebox for one node and that does what I need it to do. I have never used an inbound filebox so I'm not sure how that would work in practice or if it would fill any real need. I'm not sure my tosser knows how to use an inbound
    filebox for a link.

    What I would like to see is a proper binkps protocol. We could drop the CRYPT option (when using binkps) and have a fully secure session, regardless of inbound or outbound directories.

    Ttyl :-),
    Al

    --- GoldED+/LNX
    * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)
  • From mark lewis@1:3634/12 to Rob Swindell on Wed Apr 22 16:29:02 2020
    Re: Pssword ord ord case insensitive or not?
    By: Rob Swindell to mark lewis on Wed Apr 22 2020 13:21:23


    binkd supports inbound fileboxes... i'm not sure about tossers, though...

    SBBSecho supports inbound fileboxes. Not sure if any one has actually used/tested them yet.

    ahh! nice to know... something else added to the TODO list ;)


    )\/(ark
    --- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux
    * Origin: SouthEast Star Mail HUB - SESTAR (1:3634/12)
  • From Oli@2:280/464.47 to Alan Ianson on Wed Apr 22 22:34:47 2020
    22 Apr 20 13:10, you wrote to me:

    Hello Oli,

    I wonder why we still use packet passwords. Why not create a
    inbound filebox for every node/point that calls and rely on the
    session password? Is there any (open source) mailer or tosser
    that support inbound fileboxes?

    I use binkd and it does support in and out fileboxes. I have only ever used an outbound filebox for one node and that does what I need it to
    do. I have never used an inbound filebox so I'm not sure how that
    would work in practice or if it would fill any real need. I'm not sure
    my tosser knows how to use an inbound filebox for a link.

    But you have to define the filebox for every node in advance. I thougt it would
    be nice to create a filebox for every incoming connection automatically. Argus is very flexible (search for filebox):

    http://www.artur.pl/hack/ritlabs.ii.pl/argus/hlp/eng/index.html

    What I would like to see is a proper binkps protocol. We could drop
    the CRYPT option (when using binkps) and have a fully secure session, regardless of inbound or outbound directories.

    I don't understand how this is connected to packet passwords and inbound dirs.


    * Origin: kakistocracy (2:280/464.47)
  • From Alan Ianson@1:153/757 to Oli on Wed Apr 22 14:12:30 2020
    Hello Oli,

    But you have to define the filebox for every node in advance. I thougt
    it would be nice to create a filebox for every incoming connection automatically. Argus is very flexible (search for filebox):

    http://www.artur.pl/hack/ritlabs.ii.pl/argus/hlp/eng/index.html

    That's an interesting idea but you'd have to communicate the location of that inbound filebox to your tosser somehow.

    What I would like to see is a proper binkps protocol. We could
    drop the CRYPT option (when using binkps) and have a fully secure
    session, regardless of inbound or outbound directories.

    I don't understand how this is connected to packet passwords and
    inbound dirs.

    If we had a reliable/secure session we wouldn't need packet passwords or inbound directories randomly placed around the file system.

    Ttyl :-),
    Al

    --- GoldED+/LNX
    * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)
  • From mark lewis@1:3634/12 to Oli on Wed Apr 22 21:04:28 2020
    Re: Pssword ord ord case insensitive or not?
    By: Oli to Alan Ianson on Wed Apr 22 2020 22:34:47


    What I would like to see is a proper binkps protocol. We could drop
    the CRYPT option (when using binkps) and have a fully secure session,
    regardless of inbound or outbound directories.

    I don't understand how this is connected to packet passwords and
    inbound dirs.

    it is simply an "aside comment" and could be the beginning of a branch off of this topic ;)


    )\/(ark
    --- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux
    * Origin: SouthEast Star Mail HUB - SESTAR (1:3634/12)
  • From Tommi Koivula@2:221/1.1 to Oli on Thu Apr 23 08:15:06 2020
    Hi Oli.

    22 Apr 20 21:37:30, you wrote to Alan Ianson:

    I wonder why we still use packet passwords. Why not create a inbound filebox for every node/point that calls and rely on the session
    password? Is there any (open source) mailer or tosser that support
    inbound fileboxes?

    BinkD :) I have different inboxes for some of my links.

    Hpt can handle multiple inbound dirs, it just needs some tweaking by env vars. Or included configs.

    'Tommi

    ---
    * Origin: IPv6 Point at [2001:470:1f15:cb0:2:221:1:1] (2:221/1.1)
  • From Oli@2:280/464.47 to Alan Ianson on Thu Apr 23 09:57:10 2020
    22 Apr 20 14:12, you wrote to me:

    Hello Oli,

    But you have to define the filebox for every node in advance. I
    thougt it would be nice to create a filebox for every incoming
    connection automatically. Argus is very flexible (search for
    filebox):

    http://www.artur.pl/hack/ritlabs.ii.pl/argus/hlp/eng/index.html

    That's an interesting idea but you'd have to communicate the location
    of that inbound filebox to your tosser somehow.

    It could be like BSO for inbound. You just need a good specification for the format.
    E.g. Node 7:8/9 calls and received files are put into

    inbound/othernet.7.8.9.0/trusted/

    or if there is no session password into

    inbound/othernet.7.8.9.0/unknown/

    No need to specifiy an inbox for every node and point in the mailer's config.

    What I would like to see is a proper binkps protocol. We could
    drop the CRYPT option (when using binkps) and have a fully
    secure session, regardless of inbound or outbound directories.

    I don't understand how this is connected to packet passwords and
    inbound dirs.

    If we had a reliable/secure session we wouldn't need packet passwords
    or inbound directories randomly placed around the file system.

    I still don't understand how that helps. What exactly do you have in mind?

    The problem is the interface between mailer and tosser. Everyone with a session
    password can drop anything in my shared "secure" inbound. So now we need a packet password, because the information about the session is thrown out the window and isn't communicated to the tosser. We wouldn't need a packet password, if the tosser did know that the packet was delivered in an authenticated session with node 7:8/9.



    * Origin: kakistocracy (2:280/464.47)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to mark lewis on Thu Apr 23 11:31:32 2020
    Hi mark,

    On 2020-04-22 14:25:45, you wrote to me:

    Well there is no cure for stupidity. ;)

    sure there is but it isn't very nice or generally acceptible...

    the cure? hot lead at high velocity ;) O:)

    It's a permanent solution. I would call it a cure. ;)

    Bye, Wilfred.

    --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
    * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Rob Swindell on Thu Apr 23 11:34:10 2020
    Hi Rob,

    On 2020-04-22 13:15:19, you wrote to me:

    Luckily, with password-protected mail sessions the norm these
    days,
    packet passwords are kind of moot and probably should just be
    deprecated. Doubt that'll happen though.

    I don't agree here. Packet passwords provide an extra layer of security.
    For instance without it, anyone can drop a .pkt file in your insecure
    inbound with a falsified source address and echomail in it. If you
    process .pkt files from your inbound automatically, it will get tossed,
    if there is no packet password agreeded upon for the falsified source...

    SBBSecho will not import echomail from an insecure inbound directory.

    Not every system works that way...

    Bye, Wilfred.

    --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
    * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
  • From Alan Ianson@1:153/757 to Oli on Thu Apr 23 02:36:36 2020
    Hello Oli,

    That's an interesting idea but you'd have to communicate the
    location of that inbound filebox to your tosser somehow.

    It could be like BSO for inbound. You just need a good specification
    for the format. E.g. Node 7:8/9 calls and received files are put into

    inbound/othernet.7.8.9.0/trusted/

    or if there is no session password into

    inbound/othernet.7.8.9.0/unknown/

    No need to specifiy an inbox for every node and point in the mailer's config.

    I think that's an interesting idea and as Tommi suggested it could be made to work with environment variables or include files.

    I'm happy with my inbound as it is and can't think of any reason to make it more complicated.

    If we had a reliable/secure session we wouldn't need packet
    passwords or inbound directories randomly placed around the file
    system.

    I still don't understand how that helps. What exactly do you have in
    mind?

    I don't actually have anything in mind. I dunno how we got on this topic. :)

    The problem is the interface between mailer and tosser. Everyone with
    a session password can drop anything in my shared "secure" inbound. So
    now we need a packet password, because the information about the
    session is thrown out the window and isn't communicated to the tosser.
    We wouldn't need a packet password, if the tosser did know that the
    packet was delivered in an authenticated session with node 7:8/9.

    Isn't that the difference between a secure and unsecure inbound?

    It is a shared inbound but it is secure.

    Ttyl :-),
    Al

    --- GoldED+/LNX
    * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)
  • From Paul Quinn@3:640/1384 to Wilfred van Velzen on Thu Apr 23 20:16:48 2020
    Hi! Wilfred,

    On 23 Apr 20 11:31, you wrote to mark lewis:

    Well there is no cure for stupidity. ;)
    sure there is but it isn't very nice or generally acceptible...

    the cure? hot lead at high velocity ;) O:)
    It's a permanent solution. I would call it a cure. ;)

    OTOH low velocity is a wakeup call you're not likely to forget. ;)

    Cheers,
    Paul.

    ... I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20130515
    * Origin: Quinn's Rock - Live from Paul's Xubuntu desktop! (3:640/1384)
  • From Oli@2:280/464.47 to Alan Ianson on Thu Apr 23 13:05:09 2020
    23 Apr 20 02:36, you wrote to me:

    It could be like BSO for inbound. You just need a good
    specification for the format. E.g. Node 7:8/9 calls and received
    files are put into

    inbound/othernet.7.8.9.0/trusted/
    [...]
    No need to specifiy an inbox for every node and point in the
    mailer's config.

    I think that's an interesting idea and as Tommi suggested it could be
    made to work with environment variables or include files.

    I'm happy with my inbound as it is and can't think of any reason to
    make it more complicated.

    The goal would be to have support for something like this in the mailer _and_ tosser software and have a solution that is less complicated. Realistically it would be just another format with limited support ;). On the other hand it is not that complicated.

    If we had a reliable/secure session we wouldn't need packet
    passwords or inbound directories randomly placed around the file
    system.

    I still don't understand how that helps. What exactly do you have
    in mind?

    I don't actually have anything in mind. I dunno how we got on this
    topic. :)

    You said binkps could make packet passwords obsolete. I still want to know how that would work ;).

    The problem is the interface between mailer and tosser. Everyone
    with a session password can drop anything in my shared "secure"
    inbound. So now we need a packet password, because the
    information about the session is thrown out the window and isn't
    communicated to the tosser. We wouldn't need a packet password,
    if the tosser did know that the packet was delivered in an
    authenticated session with node 7:8/9.

    Isn't that the difference between a secure and unsecure inbound?

    It is a shared inbound but it is secure.

    There is a difference between

    1) this pkt/file is from some authenticated node (we don't know which one)
    2) this pkt/file is from node 7:8/9

    For 1) you have to use packet passwords (if you have more than one uplink/downlink).
    With 2) the packet password would be redundant.



    * Origin: kakistocracy (2:280/464.47)
  • From mark lewis@1:3634/12 to Oli on Thu Apr 23 12:26:30 2020
    Re: Pssword ord ord case insensitive or not?
    By: Oli to Alan Ianson on Thu Apr 23 2020 09:57:10


    The problem is the interface between mailer and tosser. Everyone
    with a session password can drop anything in my shared "secure"
    inbound. So now we need a packet password, because the information
    about the session is thrown out the window and isn't communicated
    to the tosser. We wouldn't need a packet password, if the tosser
    did know that the packet was delivered in an authenticated session
    with node 7:8/9.

    so how are you going to provide that information if you are doing FTN via pigeon, tape, or sneakernet transfers?

    the tosser is the tosser... it doesn't need to know anything about *how* packets arrived on system... it only needs to know if they are in the secure or
    insecure inbound and make its decision to process or not from that information...


    )\/(ark
    --- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux
    * Origin: SouthEast Star Mail HUB - SESTAR (1:3634/12)