Re: [Ntp] Antwort: Why Roughtime?

Hal Murray <> Mon, 18 December 2023 18:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DC7CC14F61E; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 10:18:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TbXgFEoKG--O; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 10:18:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D28DC14F615; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 10:18:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 3BIIIeuo018125 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 18 Dec 2023 10:18:40 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=net23; t=1702923521; bh=phXuJdh1wjYB3Y91SqyMXT5QMGACqOKcYDeoK0wBs8M=; h=To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Date:Message-Id:From:Subject; b=dnZRL/OWTY/Anw0taF0x/BX844Uh4utTuJA5Eyc0aEX6y4LK56B1Dm2/s3dVbzlWH 438UKjC2urIAp9+JmVJGcgoFc52r5RZqAQTV7tYT1D5WwUudFiuCwmVx0X4ZxlQ1pq IhjWlJjNlnPdYD9qDAqEQP1upUeBKcdcg/1S4gh3LpunqJ1hxnS5Sz6OoP6xX6Ct+Z IapcOn2WFtcNLWLNjkvhmXfij1gz5eTTRAzrN/XaDP8XKrAoR65lKJKQTwCqnxJgnC pP8FYmnKQ7tkQXtHij4Rx+PdSIHnmDuj4PhoFOz2HjIemxn13iFs1swQcdog4lkshH ZTFmImkNtXfeA==
Received: from hgm (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 794FD28C1C3; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 10:18:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.9.0 11/07/2018 with nmh-1.8
To: Ben Laurie <>
cc:, Hal Murray <>,
From: Hal Murray <>
In-Reply-To: Message from Ben Laurie <> of "Mon, 18 Dec 2023 14:11:09 +0000." <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 10:18:40 -0800
Message-Id: <>
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVbTuFAJJAnO/ZFlNvJO+cyjuOVdkWAJ6RxhmQsYX9dI3wOWUcQteetFprBAcXsvb+WcpeqJ4xwFzFzTbIU/WP5a3Yvqu0/0QKc=
X-Sonic-ID: C;+BS+3tGd7hGeQpwCP63e0g== M;uiLQ3tGd7hGeQpwCP63e0g==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: -1.5/5.0 by cerberusd
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Antwort: Why Roughtime?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Time Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 18:18:46 -0000

Ben Laurie said:
>  I think you've both missed an important point: if an NTS server gives me
> incorrect time and I point that out, there's no way for you to know, in
> general, whether my claim is true or not. With roughtime, I can present
> evidence. 

We can get the evidence with a minor addition to NTS-KE.  We don't need a new 
protocol and new set of servers.

What are you going to do with that evidence?  If a server is broken and 
returning bad time to everybody then it will be easy for anybody to confirm 
your observation.  Is evidence good for anything other than a legal battle 
when a malicious server is returning bogus time to only your IP address?

These are my opinions.  I hate spam.