openntpd.org

Posted Oct 1, 2017 23:15 UTC (Sun) by cornelio (guest, #117499)
Parent article: A security review of three NTP implementations

FWIW, OpenBSD has its own fork.

openntpd.org

Posted Oct 1, 2017 23:36 UTC (Sun) by karkhaz (subscriber, #99844) [Link] (2 responses)

Yes, when I saw the headline I was really hoping that the third implementation to be tested would be OpenNTPD. They're using the same development model as OpenSSH (whereby main development is targeted at OpenBSD, and a different developer patches it to create the 'portable' version), which comes with all of the pros and cons that this model entails. I've been using OpenNTPD on my (Linux) boxes, very happy with it.

openntpd.org

Posted Oct 2, 2017 2:11 UTC (Mon) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link]

Likewise. I don't know about chrony, and this report is encouraging, but I personally used to use OpenNTPD myself, back when I ran a full NTP daemon and not just an SNTP client.

openntpd.org

Posted Oct 12, 2017 21:16 UTC (Thu) by jch (guest, #51929) [Link]

Last time I checked, OpenNTPd violated the protocol in ways that may cause synchronisation loops (which might in principle lead to desynchronisation of the whole network, not just of the machine running OpenNTPd). I recommend you avoid it.

openntpd.org

Posted Oct 3, 2017 6:26 UTC (Tue) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]

Just a nitpick -- OpenNTPD is not a fork, it's a reimplementation like chrony.