From fac07b2e5a11d12be87ed07055b4944ce01fad09 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mikaela Suomalainen Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 12:44:18 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] sasl.cpp: don't advertise DH-* as secure They were removed from Atheme, because people thought them to be more secure than PLAIN + SSL, so ZNC shouldn't advertise them as secure. I think that DH-AES and DH-BLOWFISH should say something about not being widely supported, but I am not sure what. Newer Atheme doesn't support it and with Anope they are optional unlike PLAIN and EXTERNAL that are in their SASL core. --- modules/sasl.cpp | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/modules/sasl.cpp b/modules/sasl.cpp index bc1a7966..ef6763b2 100644 --- a/modules/sasl.cpp +++ b/modules/sasl.cpp @@ -28,10 +28,10 @@ static const struct { } SupportedMechanisms[] = { { "EXTERNAL", "TLS certificate, for use with the *cert module", false }, #ifdef HAVE_SASL_MECHANISM - { "DH-BLOWFISH", "Secure negotiation using the DH-BLOWFISH mechanism", false }, - { "DH-AES", "More secure negotiation using the DH-AES mechanism", false }, + { "DH-BLOWFISH", "Negotiation using the DH-BLOWFISH mechanism", false }, + { "DH-AES", "Negotiation using the DH-AES mechanism", false }, #endif - { "PLAIN", "Plain text negotiation", true }, + { "PLAIN", "Plain text negotiation, this should work always if the network supports SASL", true }, { NULL, NULL, false } };