![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"...the amount of time it takes a proton to pass an electron"
How can one use NTP in Javascript ??. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac ( talk • contribs) 19:24, 10 February 2003
Hello,
I just came to this entry because I was searching for a list of public accesable time servers. Something like:
http://ntp.isc.org/bin/view/Servers/WebHome#Finding_A_Time_Server
I don't know if it's legal to deeply link to it on the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.11.65 ( talk • contribs) 18:41, 26 March 2005
I am surprised no one has mentioned the Law Suits that NTP has on RIM (& in consideration are MS and IBM) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.241.79 ( talk • contribs) 12:41, 24 November 2005
The University of Wisconsin Madison suffered a denial of service "attack" from flawed NetGear routers using NTP. Seems like something relevant to this article, though the relevance may be more tangental than anything. Perhaps a request for a new article is warranted? I've not done that before...
The history of the NTP DoS at the UW-Madison as told by the source is at http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~plonka/netgear-sntp/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidDouthitt ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 8 November 2005
This topic is covered in NTP server misuse and abuse. Jaho 02:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Dunno if it's worth mentioning in the main article, but in the UK 123 is the phone number for the Speaking clock. Anyone know if there's any connection between the two? mh. 01:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Under Network_Time_Protocol#Clock_strata, the illustration has arrows indication traffic pointing down. This implies that the higher strata servers push time sync data to the lower strata, when in fact it is a pull operation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfsmit ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC) (edit: Sorry -- adding sig) -- Rfsmit ( talk) 18:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Several security experts have voiced their concern about the inherent security of NTP. After attacks targeting highly secured servers in 2009 were revealed to have been broken into via an NTP client vulnerability. Numerous figures in the security community have voiced their concerns about the security of the code base and have called for comprehensive review of the protocol and several wide-spread clients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveKostecke ( talk • contribs) 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
This unverifiable clains have been replaced with properly cited text. SteveKostecke ( talk) 22:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
A lot of notes and discussions on the internet about routers and NTP. I can't find any other subject that "NTP" might stand for, so I assume they are referring to this. But how is this protocol significant to router operation?\\
I don't know where are NTP servers times comes from? Does it comes from computer's clock? Or what?-- 125.27.51.246 ( talk) 19:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User: 109.77.xx.xx and the indefinite article and Talk:XMPP#Please discuss changes to the indefinite article. Andrewa ( talk) 15:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
NTP is a purely UDP/IP protocol, not TCP/IP.
NTP is one of the oldest TCP/IP protocols still in use
Aren't those two lines contradicting? They are both in the article, so they should either be corrected, or explained —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.200.242 ( talk • contribs) 11:12, 4 November 2004
Glrx has removed mention of Network Time Foundation. Regardless of whether Network Time Foundation is independently notable, that they're responsible for ongoing NTP development is a notable fact concerning NTP. I would like to restore this to the lead. ~ KvnG 18:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe these sentences are wrong, in general:
These statements are only partially supported by the cited reference. Showing an inserted leap second as 23:59:60 is what a system honoring UTC is supposed to do, but as far as I know most systems do not. Most systems do not actually have a consistent way of representing the time 23:59:60, so they must use various imperfect workarounds, such as jumping time backwards for a second so that the last second (23:59:59) is repeated, or slowing time down so that the last second takes two seconds. (That is, many systems do not manage to achieve the requirement that time be monotonically increasing across a leap second.)
I believe a correct statement would be
and after polishing it a little more, that's the edit I intend to submit. — Steve Summit ( talk) 03:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
References
The article doesn't explain why "It is hoped that in NTP 5, a protocol still in development, only 8 strata will be permitted." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.247.48 ( talk) 15:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
A basic B as far as WikiProject Time is concerned.
Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving. -- Yamara 19:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no history discussion in this article. Here are a few sources that can be used to write such a section [1], [2], [3]. ~ KvnG 19:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
NTPsec is a secure version of NTP and a project fork of the reference implementation. They should probably be included in the page. You can find information on them here. TMLutas ( talk) 21:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Tech lead of NTPsec here. The summary of the PenTest report is, I feel, somewhat misleading. There were two new minor defects identified, but it would be fair to add that no CVE was issued for either as they were not found to be exploitable. I won't do the edit myself, but I request that one of the regular page maintainers consider it. Eric S. Raymond ( talk) 20:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
22:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)I'll check with our security officer about that. He keeps our NEWS file updated with CVEs we've dodged and (supposedly) any CVEs issued against our code. I just looked and CVE-2014-9295 isn't there. I will be displeased if it turns out to have been erroneously omitted. Thanks for the response. Eric S. Raymond ( talk) 05:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Right now, the first image of the article is File:DL Mills-2.jpg. That causes this photograph to be displayed as the image of the navigation popup, and I presume the page preview as well. I have nothing against the photograph but it is a bit weird to have a person as a preview for such a subject.
How about bringing File:Network_Time_Protocol_servers_and_clients.svg (already present in the article) into the lead to solve this? Tigraan Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 14:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
So you multiply the fractional part by 2-32 then add it to the integer part to get the time in seconds? Ojw 14:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Please mention Chrony as well as Ntp and Openntpd. The home page for the project is http://http://chrony.sunsite.dk/
No need to. This article is about the NTP protocol, ntpd and OpenNTPD are the major deamons implementing it. There are dozens NTP clients out there and chrony is just one of them. Jaho 20:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
In the "NTP Timestamps" section, there is the following quote:
"The 64 bit value for the fraction is enough to resolve the amount of time it takes a photon to pass an electron at the speed of light."
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, isn't there something missing here? What is the initial distance between these two particles (or whatever they are)? If they're billions and billions of light years apart, for example, then I could probably "resolve the amount of time" for one to pass the other using my kitchen clock. Is this an incomplete quote or am I just confused? 65.183.135.166 ( talk) 21:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I think he's trying to refer to the amount of time that a photon would take to travel the diameter of an electron. I'm not sure the quote is clear and even if it is I'm not sure anyone really knows how wide an electron is? There is a classic radius O(10^-15)m, perhaps that is what is being referred to? 92.251.70.206 ( talk) 06:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
(The point seems to be that 64+64 bits is sufficient for any possible timekeeping needs in our universe, in a stronger sense than the prediction that [ "nobody will ever need more than X kilobytes of memory"]. 71.139.177.112 ( talk) 01:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The section also says
"Implementations should disambiguate NTP time using a knowledge of the approximate time from other sources. Since this only requires time accurate to a few decades, this is unlikely to ever be a problem in general use."
I think I see what this means, but I'm not sure. Maybe an example and an explanation of the assumptions would clarify it, as in:
"For example, an operating system version that was released in the early 21st century can safely assume that the system clock should never be set to a time in the 20th century, and can probably assume that it will not still be in use in the 22nd century. In this case, a time built into the operating system would be the other source."
But it could equally well be talking about the DAYTIME protocol, file timestamps, or the computer's hardware clock. Someone who is confident of what is intended should disambiguate it.
-- 71.139.177.112 ( talk) 01:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to archive (and/or hava a bot archive) older parts of this talk page. A lot of the sections have not had any discussion for some time now. Many of these are support requests and I think that removing them might help to limit people to resist adding further ntpd support requests. I am not sure how exactly to establish community consent, please indicate if you have any objections.
DouglasCalvert ( talk) 06:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
my bullshit detector just got triggered: in the "security concerns" section we read "that can lead to unlimited access to systems that are running some versions of NTP in the root daemon. Systems that do not use the root daemon, such as BSD, are not subject to this flaw"
There is no such thing as "the root daemon" in unix system. While we can muse philosophically about things like init and systemd, none of this is relevant to the NTP topic, and the gicven source also does not make any such claims in the first place. Who writes this bullshit, and what does he want to tell us? If noone objects ill rephrase in more standard Unix terms, according to the (somewhat dated) source Wefa ( talk) 18:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey Francis Flinch, where did you get this material? Are we sure this is the best place for it. I was thinking it might be better in Master clock. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
In the first paragraph of the security section it says:
Given that it is 2020, we should either update this sentence with newer info or remove it. I don't have the time today to do the research but am flagging it here in case someone else has a chance before I get the time to do so. - Dyork ( talk) 20:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"...the amount of time it takes a proton to pass an electron"
How can one use NTP in Javascript ??. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac ( talk • contribs) 19:24, 10 February 2003
Hello,
I just came to this entry because I was searching for a list of public accesable time servers. Something like:
http://ntp.isc.org/bin/view/Servers/WebHome#Finding_A_Time_Server
I don't know if it's legal to deeply link to it on the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.11.65 ( talk • contribs) 18:41, 26 March 2005
I am surprised no one has mentioned the Law Suits that NTP has on RIM (& in consideration are MS and IBM) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.241.79 ( talk • contribs) 12:41, 24 November 2005
The University of Wisconsin Madison suffered a denial of service "attack" from flawed NetGear routers using NTP. Seems like something relevant to this article, though the relevance may be more tangental than anything. Perhaps a request for a new article is warranted? I've not done that before...
The history of the NTP DoS at the UW-Madison as told by the source is at http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~plonka/netgear-sntp/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidDouthitt ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 8 November 2005
This topic is covered in NTP server misuse and abuse. Jaho 02:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Dunno if it's worth mentioning in the main article, but in the UK 123 is the phone number for the Speaking clock. Anyone know if there's any connection between the two? mh. 01:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Under Network_Time_Protocol#Clock_strata, the illustration has arrows indication traffic pointing down. This implies that the higher strata servers push time sync data to the lower strata, when in fact it is a pull operation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfsmit ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC) (edit: Sorry -- adding sig) -- Rfsmit ( talk) 18:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Several security experts have voiced their concern about the inherent security of NTP. After attacks targeting highly secured servers in 2009 were revealed to have been broken into via an NTP client vulnerability. Numerous figures in the security community have voiced their concerns about the security of the code base and have called for comprehensive review of the protocol and several wide-spread clients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveKostecke ( talk • contribs) 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
This unverifiable clains have been replaced with properly cited text. SteveKostecke ( talk) 22:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
A lot of notes and discussions on the internet about routers and NTP. I can't find any other subject that "NTP" might stand for, so I assume they are referring to this. But how is this protocol significant to router operation?\\
I don't know where are NTP servers times comes from? Does it comes from computer's clock? Or what?-- 125.27.51.246 ( talk) 19:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User: 109.77.xx.xx and the indefinite article and Talk:XMPP#Please discuss changes to the indefinite article. Andrewa ( talk) 15:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
NTP is a purely UDP/IP protocol, not TCP/IP.
NTP is one of the oldest TCP/IP protocols still in use
Aren't those two lines contradicting? They are both in the article, so they should either be corrected, or explained —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.200.242 ( talk • contribs) 11:12, 4 November 2004
Glrx has removed mention of Network Time Foundation. Regardless of whether Network Time Foundation is independently notable, that they're responsible for ongoing NTP development is a notable fact concerning NTP. I would like to restore this to the lead. ~ KvnG 18:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe these sentences are wrong, in general:
These statements are only partially supported by the cited reference. Showing an inserted leap second as 23:59:60 is what a system honoring UTC is supposed to do, but as far as I know most systems do not. Most systems do not actually have a consistent way of representing the time 23:59:60, so they must use various imperfect workarounds, such as jumping time backwards for a second so that the last second (23:59:59) is repeated, or slowing time down so that the last second takes two seconds. (That is, many systems do not manage to achieve the requirement that time be monotonically increasing across a leap second.)
I believe a correct statement would be
and after polishing it a little more, that's the edit I intend to submit. — Steve Summit ( talk) 03:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
References
The article doesn't explain why "It is hoped that in NTP 5, a protocol still in development, only 8 strata will be permitted." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.247.48 ( talk) 15:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
A basic B as far as WikiProject Time is concerned.
Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving. -- Yamara 19:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no history discussion in this article. Here are a few sources that can be used to write such a section [1], [2], [3]. ~ KvnG 19:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
NTPsec is a secure version of NTP and a project fork of the reference implementation. They should probably be included in the page. You can find information on them here. TMLutas ( talk) 21:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Tech lead of NTPsec here. The summary of the PenTest report is, I feel, somewhat misleading. There were two new minor defects identified, but it would be fair to add that no CVE was issued for either as they were not found to be exploitable. I won't do the edit myself, but I request that one of the regular page maintainers consider it. Eric S. Raymond ( talk) 20:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
22:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)I'll check with our security officer about that. He keeps our NEWS file updated with CVEs we've dodged and (supposedly) any CVEs issued against our code. I just looked and CVE-2014-9295 isn't there. I will be displeased if it turns out to have been erroneously omitted. Thanks for the response. Eric S. Raymond ( talk) 05:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Right now, the first image of the article is File:DL Mills-2.jpg. That causes this photograph to be displayed as the image of the navigation popup, and I presume the page preview as well. I have nothing against the photograph but it is a bit weird to have a person as a preview for such a subject.
How about bringing File:Network_Time_Protocol_servers_and_clients.svg (already present in the article) into the lead to solve this? Tigraan Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 14:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
So you multiply the fractional part by 2-32 then add it to the integer part to get the time in seconds? Ojw 14:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Please mention Chrony as well as Ntp and Openntpd. The home page for the project is http://http://chrony.sunsite.dk/
No need to. This article is about the NTP protocol, ntpd and OpenNTPD are the major deamons implementing it. There are dozens NTP clients out there and chrony is just one of them. Jaho 20:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
In the "NTP Timestamps" section, there is the following quote:
"The 64 bit value for the fraction is enough to resolve the amount of time it takes a photon to pass an electron at the speed of light."
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, isn't there something missing here? What is the initial distance between these two particles (or whatever they are)? If they're billions and billions of light years apart, for example, then I could probably "resolve the amount of time" for one to pass the other using my kitchen clock. Is this an incomplete quote or am I just confused? 65.183.135.166 ( talk) 21:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I think he's trying to refer to the amount of time that a photon would take to travel the diameter of an electron. I'm not sure the quote is clear and even if it is I'm not sure anyone really knows how wide an electron is? There is a classic radius O(10^-15)m, perhaps that is what is being referred to? 92.251.70.206 ( talk) 06:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
(The point seems to be that 64+64 bits is sufficient for any possible timekeeping needs in our universe, in a stronger sense than the prediction that [ "nobody will ever need more than X kilobytes of memory"]. 71.139.177.112 ( talk) 01:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The section also says
"Implementations should disambiguate NTP time using a knowledge of the approximate time from other sources. Since this only requires time accurate to a few decades, this is unlikely to ever be a problem in general use."
I think I see what this means, but I'm not sure. Maybe an example and an explanation of the assumptions would clarify it, as in:
"For example, an operating system version that was released in the early 21st century can safely assume that the system clock should never be set to a time in the 20th century, and can probably assume that it will not still be in use in the 22nd century. In this case, a time built into the operating system would be the other source."
But it could equally well be talking about the DAYTIME protocol, file timestamps, or the computer's hardware clock. Someone who is confident of what is intended should disambiguate it.
-- 71.139.177.112 ( talk) 01:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to archive (and/or hava a bot archive) older parts of this talk page. A lot of the sections have not had any discussion for some time now. Many of these are support requests and I think that removing them might help to limit people to resist adding further ntpd support requests. I am not sure how exactly to establish community consent, please indicate if you have any objections.
DouglasCalvert ( talk) 06:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
my bullshit detector just got triggered: in the "security concerns" section we read "that can lead to unlimited access to systems that are running some versions of NTP in the root daemon. Systems that do not use the root daemon, such as BSD, are not subject to this flaw"
There is no such thing as "the root daemon" in unix system. While we can muse philosophically about things like init and systemd, none of this is relevant to the NTP topic, and the gicven source also does not make any such claims in the first place. Who writes this bullshit, and what does he want to tell us? If noone objects ill rephrase in more standard Unix terms, according to the (somewhat dated) source Wefa ( talk) 18:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey Francis Flinch, where did you get this material? Are we sure this is the best place for it. I was thinking it might be better in Master clock. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
In the first paragraph of the security section it says:
Given that it is 2020, we should either update this sentence with newer info or remove it. I don't have the time today to do the research but am flagging it here in case someone else has a chance before I get the time to do so. - Dyork ( talk) 20:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)