Minetest logo

IRC log for #minetest-dev, 2015-04-11

| Channels | #minetest-dev index | Today | | Google Search | Plaintext

All times shown according to UTC.

Time Nick Message
00:58 Megaf joined #minetest-dev
01:58 Fritigern joined #minetest-dev
03:01 ShadowNinja est31: No, I got carried away with fixing NetworkPacket.  :-P
03:02 ShadowNinja Doesn't really matter though, since the client is apparently hardcoded to proto v24 right now.
03:05 est31 It matters a bit ShadowNinja as I'm right editing v25, especially the early stages
03:05 est31 to get srp support
03:05 est31 but your change is small, it can be rebased fast
03:05 ShadowNinja ^
03:13 Hunterz joined #minetest-dev
03:20 Zeno` joined #minetest-dev
03:21 jin_xi joined #minetest-dev
03:30 Miner_48er joined #minetest-dev
03:37 cheapie joined #minetest-dev
04:50 cib0 joined #minetest-dev
05:11 est31 joined #minetest-dev
06:23 Hunterz1 joined #minetest-dev
06:24 Zeno` joined #minetest-dev
06:24 Zeno` I just realised something
06:24 Zeno` that fake server...
06:25 Zeno` *if* the person was indeed the person using social engineering a few weeks ago to get escalated privs on at least 2 servers I know of, then that person now has a lot of people's passwords
06:26 Zeno` ugh, sorry... meant that to be pm
06:39 Krock joined #minetest-dev
06:46 AnotherBrick joined #minetest-dev
07:53 Taoki[mobile] joined #minetest-dev
07:57 blaze joined #minetest-dev
08:03 Hijiri joined #minetest-dev
08:03 blaze joined #minetest-dev
08:03 blaze joined #minetest-dev
08:12 johnnyjoy joined #minetest-dev
08:19 Calinou joined #minetest-dev
08:37 kilbith joined #minetest-dev
08:37 cib0 joined #minetest-dev
09:16 kilbith joined #minetest-dev
09:22 Taoki[laptop] joined #minetest-dev
09:46 OldCoder joined #minetest-dev
09:52 chchjesus joined #minetest-dev
09:56 AnotherBrick joined #minetest-dev
10:33 MinetestForFun joined #minetest-dev
10:50 cib0 joined #minetest-dev
10:52 nrzkt joined #minetest-dev
10:53 nrzkt ~tell est31 the new _init packet must only present the server. We don't need the player name here. It's a pure initialization. Playername should be sent in the next packet, or the auth packet if auth isn't next. _init packet is only for the server and client presentation, no need to know about player here, it's only the protocol init
10:53 ShadowBot nrzkt: O.K.
10:56 kilbith joined #minetest-dev
11:00 MinetestForFun joined #minetest-dev
11:00 kilbith sfan5, i'd like to integrate an [Exit to OS] button on the mainmenu for the fullscreen option in 2555 -- problem is there's no Lua callback for exit to OS (only in C++), would you be willing to add it ?
11:17 Amaz joined #minetest-dev
11:22 err404 joined #minetest-dev
11:38 roniz_ joined #minetest-dev
12:05 Taoki[laptop] joined #minetest-dev
12:13 Hunterz joined #minetest-dev
12:15 err404 joined #minetest-dev
12:20 selat joined #minetest-dev
13:22 cib0 joined #minetest-dev
13:57 Anchakor_ joined #minetest-dev
14:01 Hunterz joined #minetest-dev
14:10 kilbith joined #minetest-dev
14:31 Player_2 joined #minetest-dev
14:57 VanessaE joined #minetest-dev
15:11 rubenwardy joined #minetest-dev
15:25 cib joined #minetest-dev
15:27 MinetestForFun joined #minetest-dev
15:35 hmmmm joined #minetest-dev
16:05 jin_xi joined #minetest-dev
16:50 cib0 joined #minetest-dev
16:57 Hijiri joined #minetest-dev
17:05 selat joined #minetest-dev
17:18 srifqi joined #minetest-dev
17:18 srifqi ~tell est31 Please check #2561
17:18 ShadowBot srifqi: O.K.
17:48 srifqi joined #minetest-dev
17:57 Hijiri joined #minetest-dev
18:02 srifqi joined #minetest-dev
18:41 est31 joined #minetest-dev
18:45 ShadowBot joined #minetest-dev
19:06 est31 man, hard to reach nrzkt
19:06 est31 I want to discuss with him about the init packets
19:06 est31 but he is offline :/
19:09 est31 perhaps I'll do a PR and then we can discuss it there...
19:10 est31 because now I am convinced of the opposite
19:10 kilbith you have his e-mail address...
19:10 est31 the player name should be in the init packet, not in an extra packet
19:11 est31 good idea
19:12 est31 ah he is on the mailinglist, very fine
19:29 hmmmm it's hard to keep track of changes and proposed changes to the protocol
19:29 hmmmm i propose maintaining a document for both layers of the protocol
19:30 hmmmm whenever you change the protocol, you update the docs for it which should be in the doc directory
19:30 cib0 joined #minetest-dev
19:30 hmmmm whenever you propose a change, you change the doc and show the diff of it
19:32 est31 this is how clientiface looks like after my changes: http://pastie.org/10087048
19:32 est31 ow sorry thats the old one
19:32 est31 new one here: http://pastie.org/10087049
19:33 est31 here without line length limitations: http://pastebin.com/kjG5n44y
19:33 MinetestForFun joined #minetest-dev
19:35 err404 joined #minetest-dev
19:35 est31 but that image isn't very informative, as with the current protocol v25, only the "Authentication, depending on ..." part is another one
19:36 est31 That is too complicated to be added to the ascii art
19:37 est31 then there is networkprotocl.h
19:37 est31 its also a good doc
19:39 est31 mail sent
19:40 hmmmm that second post, the new one, is that your proposed one or is that how the protocol currently is at this moment in time?
19:40 est31 its how the protocol is right now basically without the "Authentication, depending on ..." part
19:41 est31 that part is in the current protocol done by the opcode TOSERVER_AUTH
19:41 hmmmm ahh ok
19:41 hmmmm so TOCLIENT_HELLO already exists
19:41 hmmmm is there a list of fields for each packet?
19:41 est31 yes
19:41 Krock I don't get it. Why #2618 cause an instant error after the 2nd connect?
19:41 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2618 -- 30s timeout when connecting to server by SmallJoker
19:41 est31 all in networkprotocol.h
19:43 hmmmm erm
19:43 hmmmm was that file added recently because i can't find it
19:44 hmmmm oh hrmm interesting
19:44 est31 networkprotocol.h is in src/network
19:44 est31 previously it was named clientserver.h I think
19:44 hmmmm yeah i see, my project file must just be out of date
19:46 hmmmm so what *is* sent in TOCLIENT_HELLO?  nothing??
19:47 est31 u16 command, u8 deployed version I think
19:47 est31 https://github.com/minetest/minetest/blob/ma​ster/src/network/clientpackethandler.cpp#L47
19:48 est31 yes only that currently
19:48 hmmmm yea.. it's not documented at all
19:48 hmmmm i don't know, it's odd but i'm withholding judgement
19:48 hmmmm there could be a lot more information in the earlier stages
19:49 est31 yes, I'll add authentication information to the packet
19:50 est31 from nrzkt's mail on the list: "The first step is implemented server side, i cutted TOCLIENT_INIT_LEGACY in two parts, TOCLIENT_HELO which send only the server version and some supported things, like compression modes (server presentation to client) and TOCLIENT_AUTH_ACCEPT to answer the client that the authentication was accepted."
19:50 hmmmm and what did this accomplish exactly
19:50 hmmmm i don't like making changes for the sake of making changes
19:51 est31 the playerpos for example should only be sent when the authentication was successful
19:52 est31 so its ok with the current protocol to send it in the second message, because after the client has sent the initial TOSERVER_INIT_LEGACY, we already can determine whether auth succeeded or failed
19:52 est31 but srp will have multiple messages sent back and forth
19:53 est31 and at the start, the client needs to know whether it is opening a new account on the server, or logging in as existing account. Current protocol is same for both (send the password), but srp differs
19:53 hmmmm whathftgifucvok
19:53 hmmmm TOSERVER_INIT_LEGACY had the password and the player's name?
19:53 est31 yes
19:54 hmmmm the very first packet sent is the player name and password?
19:54 hmmmm eth
19:54 hmmmm this is terrifying
19:54 est31 https://github.com/minetest/minetest/blob/​master/src/network/networkprotocol.h#L615
20:08 est31 hmmmm, which NetBSD/FreeBSD versions do we support?
20:08 hmmmm as many as possible
20:08 est31 https://gmplib.org/gmp6.0.html sais T"his release will not work on NetBSD 5.x, FreeBSD 7.x, 8.x or 9 series before 9.3."
20:08 hmmmm ooh..
20:08 est31 Workaround: Use an older GMP release, or install GNU m4 from /usr/ports and tell GMP to use it.
20:08 hmmmm yeah not good
20:08 hmmmm I was going to say it's fine to drop support for FreeBSD <= 7.0
20:09 hmmmm we already depend on features new to freebsd 7.0
20:09 hmmmm what's so amazing about libgmp 6.0 ?
20:10 est31 we can use older releases too
20:10 est31 I just want one without known security vulnerabilities, and one which works
20:11 est31 (6.0 is newest)
20:11 hmmmm well let's see what is actually changed and improved
20:11 hmmmm "faster mixed arithmetic between mpq_class and double" - like, what?  we don't use floating point numbers here
20:12 hmmmm looks like AVX2 support
20:12 hmmmm i don't know.  is it worth not supporting just about every variant of freebsd just for some avx2
20:13 est31 then 5.1.3
20:13 hmmmm if somebody wants to use the super-optmized version of gmp that has poor bsd support, they can use their own installation of the library
20:13 hmmmm but it should fall back to a version that everybody has
20:13 est31 yup
20:13 est31 "The BSD MP compatibility functions have been removed."
20:13 hmmmm erm, a version that supports as much as possible
20:14 est31 what does that mean??
20:14 est31 https://gmplib.org/gmp5.1.html
20:15 hmmmm i have no idea
20:15 hmmmm it's probably not important
20:16 est31 the freebsd ports page claims to have 5.1.3
20:16 hmmmm yeah let's go with that one then
20:16 est31 yea
20:19 est31 I'll add it like lua, under a folder src/gmp
20:20 hmmmm yeah
20:20 Hijiri joined #minetest-dev
20:21 hmmmm i wonder, what is the significance of "k" in srp?  how dies it make the session key computation more secure than it would otherwise be
20:22 est31 wiki sais "k is a parameter derived by both sides; for example, k = H(N, g). This creates an asymmetry between the client and server sides of the protocol, meaning a man-in-the-middle attacker only gets 1 verification attempt per impersonation, rather than 2."
20:22 hmmmm oh durr
20:22 Fritigern joined #minetest-dev
20:22 hmmmm i didn't realize wikipedia said that
20:23 est31 I have some issues with the wikipedia page though
20:23 Calinou \o/ a new dependency
20:23 est31 e.g. "x is discarded because it is equivalent to the plaintext password p."
20:23 est31 that is wrong AFAIK
20:23 hmmmm how so
20:23 hmmmm it is the cryptographic equivalent
20:24 hmmmm just salted and hashed along with the username
20:24 est31 a brute forcer can calculate g^x just like that
20:24 est31 so when they know v, they can already brute force the password
20:24 est31 so x isn't less or more password equivalent than v.
20:25 hmmmm well they definitely know s since that's public
20:25 hmmmm they also know the username
20:25 est31 g is also public
20:25 hmmmm sure
20:26 hmmmm but they don't exactly know what x is because it's been modulo N
20:26 hmmmm they don't send g^x, they send (g^x)%N
20:26 hmmmm x on the other hand is not modulo N in any computations directly
20:26 hmmmm is not computed modulo N i meant to say
20:27 Calinou we should have password brute-force protection in Minetest btw
20:27 Calinou allow only one password attempt per 10 seconds
20:27 Calinou or 5
20:27 hmmmm that's mod material, calinou
20:27 Calinou why shouldn't it be in core?
20:27 hmmmm why should it?
20:27 hmmmm the core is the core, that's a module like fail2ban
20:30 est31 hmmmm, doesn't x only appear in forms of g^x?
20:30 hmmmm are you sure?
20:31 hmmmm i thought it was always modulo N
20:31 est31 yes always mod N
20:35 hmmmm oh speaking of which, there's a redundancy on that wiki page's example code
20:35 hmmmm in computing S_c, they could replace pow(g, x, N) with v
20:39 est31 yea
20:40 hmmmm so you wanted to support multiple versions of auth, correct?
20:40 est31 yes.
20:41 hmmmm how do you intend to do this?
20:42 est31 the client sends the server their username, the server looks up the password field in the db or whereever, and then finds out which mechanisms it can send as answer
20:42 est31 then the client choses one of those mechanisms
20:42 est31 Initially, there are three
20:42 est31 SRP_LEGACY, SPP, and SRP_FIRST
20:42 hmmmm what's SPP?
20:42 est31 lol
20:42 est31 SRP*
20:42 hmmmm oh what are those
20:43 est31 so SRP_LEGACY is SRP based on the legacy hash instead of the bare password
20:44 est31 SRP is the usual SRP based on a verifier that has been sent to the server during SRP_FIRST
20:44 est31 also, the SRP_LEGACY protocol should contain a mechanism where the user can send a verifier that should be used in future
20:44 hmmmm what is SRP_FIRST, then?
20:45 hmmmm if the account doesn't exist?
20:45 est31 yup
20:45 hmmmm shouldn't you just make that a separate packet exchange to create a new account?
20:45 est31 as in?
20:46 hmmmm well, how does SRP_FIRST work?
20:47 est31 very simple, one packet, where the client sends the verifier, thats it
20:47 hmmmm the way blizzard games did it was that they sent a separate account creation packet
20:47 hmmmm oh
20:47 hmmmm that's the same here except the client creates s and sends the verifier
20:48 est31 the salt is composed from the serverSalt and the clientSalt
20:48 est31 both sent in the init packets, one by server one by client
20:48 hmmmm in traditional SRP, the s sent to the client is the one simply stored along with the account from creation time
20:48 hmmmm if you want to have two separate salts I guess that's fine
20:48 hmmmm but i'm not sure how that would make things more secure
20:50 hmmmm in fact I'm not so sure why we don't just create a random salt exclusively on the server
20:50 hmmmm how does the client providing its own salt help
20:50 est31 if the server choses the salt, then it may use the salt of another server, and so find out the v there
20:53 est31 It might be that there is no benefit in the server chosing a part of the salt.
20:54 est31 I've mostly done this for consistency
20:55 hmmmm maybe the client should send its own salt in every init packet instead of on account creation
20:55 hmmmm so that the server can't compromise anything by having a poor RNG
20:56 est31 yea thats exactly what I'm planning
20:57 est31 Thats my next problem with the wiki page: " the value could be chosen by either side "
20:57 est31 No!
21:03 est31 ha lol
21:03 est31 either i'm getting it wrong, or we are using the cmake find_library not according to doc
21:04 est31 we are doing find_library(LUA_LIBRARY luajit NAMES luajit-5.1)
21:04 est31 but the doc http://www.cmake.org/cmake/help​/v3.0/command/find_library.html
21:04 est31 there it sais: find_library ( <VAR>
21:04 est31 (so far so good)
21:04 est31 name | NAMES name1 [name2 ...] [NAMES_PER_DIR]
21:05 est31 so either name or NAMES and then the list of names
21:05 est31 not both
21:06 sockbat joined #minetest-dev
21:13 est31 hmmmm, gmp has autotools based build process what to do? can I simply call the command, or should I port the whole build system?
21:14 hmmmm i say call the command
21:18 Hijiri joined #minetest-dev
21:30 est31 man, the list of gmp files makes my console buffer overflow
21:35 decimalguy joined #minetest-dev
21:40 est31 compiling gmp takes some time
21:45 est31 lol "GMP has been carefully tested by its authors, but compilers are all too often released with serious bugs.  GMP tends to explore interesting corners in compilers and has hit bugs on quite a few occasions."
21:54 err404 joined #minetest-dev
22:01 Anchakor_ joined #minetest-dev
22:04 err404 joined #minetest-dev
22:08 Hijiri joined #minetest-dev
22:28 est31 ShadowNinja, are your remarks for #2586 resolved now?
22:28 ShadowBot https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/2586 -- Fix some bugs in mainmenu tab_singleplayer and tab_server by fz72
22:48 err404 joined #minetest-dev
22:57 est31 man my 💩 works
22:57 est31 or at least compiles
23:25 err404 joined #minetest-dev
23:29 Hijiri joined #minetest-dev
23:55 paramat joined #minetest-dev

| Channels | #minetest-dev index | Today | | Google Search | Plaintext