lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 11:53:17 -0700 From: "Justin P. Mattock" <justinmattock@...il.com> To: Mihai Donțu <mihai.dontu@...il.com> CC: viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@...com>, Matti Aarnio <matti.aarnio@...iler.org>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Query: Patches break with Microsoft exchange server. On 08/09/2010 11:15 AM, Mihai Donțu wrote: > On Monday 09 August 2010 20:55:08 Justin P. Mattock wrote: >> On 08/09/2010 07:35 AM, Mihai Donțu wrote: >>> On Monday 09 August 2010 12:43:16 Justin P. Mattock wrote: >>>> On 08/09/2010 02:35 AM, viresh kumar wrote: >>>>> On 8/9/2010 2:31 PM, Matti Aarnio wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 12:26:24PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote: >>>>>>>> I missed this information in my last mail. We are using git >>>>>>>> send-email for sending patches. As patches will go through >>>>>>>> Microsoft exchange server only, so they are broken. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let your boss complain to your IT keepers. >>>>>> "These are Machine-to-Machine messages, they must not be modified!" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It would probably be "against corporate policy" to use gmail for these >>>>>> emails... >>>>> >>>>> We got one solution: Upgrade Exchange server to SP2. >>>>> Lets see if our IT department does this upgradation. >>>> >>>> that or just blast them with some cryptology..i.e. pretty sure if your >>>> message was encapsulated(AH/ESP) they couldn't tweak it.. but then >>>> sending such encryption to a public list would require a _key_ on the >>>> other side.. wishful thinking... >>>> (just a thought)... >>> >>> Shouldn't just signing the message be enough? The server (normally) would >>> not alter it, otherwise it will break the signature (which is a too >>> obvious bug even for Microsoft). Or am I missing something here? >>> >>> PS: A local SMTP with DKIM signing capabilities could be another >>> possibility, assuming Exchange does not break such signatures. >> >> yeah that would probably be just enough to get through without Microsoft >> mucking around with the font etc.., but the biggest problem(I see) with >> the encryption is having the key on the other end of the line. > > Wait. I don't think we're on the same page here. I'm talking about message > signing (which does not require the receiving end to have any key - it's the > same plain text e-mail with a blob after it) while you refer to actually > encrypting the message. Mm? Or am I being extremely slow today? :-) > no were on the same page.. keep in mind though I'm not sure how the message signing thing really works, if it's just a signature verifying that it's from you without the other end(recipient) accepting anything, then the question is will microsoft still scan the email and garble it up? Now if it's a signature where the other end needs to accept the sender then im guessing there's a little bit of encryption there to keep microsoft database scanner from doing anything(but keep in mind I never really setup the signature thing on e-mails so I could totally be wrong) Justin P. Mattock -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists