Entries posted in September 2012

I should bite my tongue.

Saturday, 29 September 2012

Too often requests of the form "I'm looking for an open source solution to ..." mean "I'm looking to spend zero money, contribute nothing, and probably not even read your excellent documentation".

| 2 comments.

 

So about that off-site encrypted backup idea ..

Friday, 28 September 2012

I'm just back from having spent a week in Helsinki. Despite some minor irritations (the light-switches were always too damn low) it was a lovely trip.

There is a lot to be said for a place, and a culture, where shrugging and grunting counts as communication.

Now I'm back, catching up on things, and mostly plotting and planning how to handle my backups going forward.

Filesystem backups I generally take using backup2l, creating local incremental backup archives then shipping them offsite using rsync. For my personal stuff I have a bunch of space on a number of hosts and I just use rsync to literally copy my ~/Images, ~/Videos, etc..

In the near future I'm going to have access to a backup server which will run rsync, and pretty much nothing else. I want to decide how to archive my content to that - securely.

The biggest issue is that my images (.CR2 + .JPG) will want to be encrypted remotely, but not locally. So I guess if I re-encrypt transient copies and rsync them I'll end up having to send "full" changes each time I rsync. Clearly that will waste bandwidth.

So my alternatives are to use incrementals, as I do elsewhere, then GPG-encrypt the tar files that are produced - simple to do with backup2l - and us rsync. That seems like the best plan, but requires that I have more space available locally since :

  • I need the local .tar files.
  • I then need to .tar.gz.asc/.tar.gz.gpg files too.

I guess I will ponder. It isn't horrific to require local duplication, but it strikes me as something I'd rather avoid - especially given that we're talking about rsync from a home-broadband which will take weeks at best for the initial copy.

| 19 comments.

 

Security changes have unintended effects.

Friday, 7 September 2012

A couple of months ago I was experimenting with adding no-new-privileges to various systems I run. Unfortunately I was surprised a few weeks later at unintended breakge.

My personal server has several "real users", and several "webserver users". Each webserver user runs a single copy of thttpd under its own UID, listening on 127.0.0.1:xxxx, where xxxx is the userid:

steve@steve:~$ id -u s-steve
1019

steve@steve:~$ sudo lsof -i :1019
COMMAND  PID    USER   FD   TYPE  DEVICE SIZE/OFF NODE NAME
thttpd  9993 s-steve    0u  IPv4 7183548      0t0  TCP localhost:1019 (LISTEN)

Facing the world I have an IPv4 & IPv6 proxy server that routes incoming connections to these local thttpd instances.

Wouldn't it be wonderful to restrict these instances, and prevent them from acquiring new privileges? Yes, I thought. Unfortunately I stumbled across a down-side: Some of the servers send email, and they do that by shelling out to /usr/sbin/sendmail which is setuid (and thus fails). D'oh!

The end result was choosing between:

  • Leaving "no-new-privileges" in place, and rewriting all my mail-sending CGI scripts.
  • Removing the protection such that setuid files can be executed.

I went with the latter for now, but will probably revisit this in the future.

In more interesting news recently I tried to recreate the feel of a painting, as an image which was successful. I think.

I've been doing a lot more shooting recently, even outdoors, which has been fun.

ObQuote: "You know, all the cheerleaders in the world wouldn't help our football team." - Bring it On

| 3 comments.

 

Recent Posts

Recent Tags