4 ms·

You can also use timedated, an optional daemon packaged with systemd. Works really well for me, I just turned it on and it hasn't complained since. The command

You can also use timedated, an optional daemon packaged with systemd. Works really well for me, I just turned it on and it hasn't complained since. The command you'll want to run is: # timedatectl set-ntp true And it'll have you within a deep fraction of a second from a decent timeserver in about ten seconds, and keep you there indefinitely. NOTE: For the person who downvoted this because they don't like systemd, seriously, you need to find a better hobby.

mst 12y ago
Also downvoted it because you'd be insane to trust systemd for this. timedated isn't an improvement, it's just a new attempt at the code. In five years, you can recommend it. For the moment, let's leave systems code to the people who understand it.
- microcolonel 12y ago
  Blah, blah, blah. You shouldn't discount everyone but the OpenBSD guys just because ntp.org's ntp is a 200kloc overgrown, underengineered mess. It offers a good out for people who would otherwise use ntp.org's ntp, and at least it's about 200x less complex(1056 lines of C). Stasticially speaking, it's unlikely to be as faulty. Timedated is an improvement even if just for the fact that it's incredibly simple to operate. You press a button and you're synchronized; very little to mess up. I use OpenNTPD on my OpenBSD boxes, but that doesn't make me immune to alternatives.
  - gonzo 12y ago
    Unfortunately, the OpenBSD "community" is all over HN.
agwa 12y ago
You're being downvoted because this article is about the security of NTP implementations, yet your basis for recommending systemd-timesyncd is that it "works really well" for you. Well, ntpd worked well for me too but that didn't make it secure. You offer no basis for thinking systemd-timesyncd is secure, and yet there are many indications that it might be insecure: 1.) it's new, 2.) it wasn't designed with security in mind (unlike openntpd), and 3.) systemd's other reimplementation of a complex, hard-to-secure, UDP-based protocol (DNS) was discovered to lack even the most basic security protections[1]. Even someone who likes systemd's init system functionality should think really hard before using systemd's DNS and NTP appendages. This kind of stuff needs the attention of security experts. It can't just be reimplemented as an afterthought and be secure. [1] http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2014/q4/592 http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2014/q4/592
- Ded7xSEoPKYNsDd 12y ago
  It being a simple NTP client and not a server means that it has a vastly reduced attack surface. That's good. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't wait and see how buggy it actually is.
  - digi_owl 12y ago
    And their named DNS daemon was to be a stub resolver. Then it grew a cache. And now it seems to have developed a insecurity that most other DNS daemons out there dealt with a decade ago...
dfc 12y ago
And if the one server timesyncd selects is a falseticker it will keep you there (where there is not equal to UTC) indefinitely too. If you want an alternative check out chrony: http://chrony.tuxfamily.org/ http://chrony.tuxfamily.org/
fsniper 12y ago
Oh I'm very keen on to see "I am using an optional email client packaged with systemd!". Good times for Linux community. Next debate recommendation from me: Should we call distributions GNU/Linux or systemd/Linux?

mst 12y ago

Also downvoted it because you'd be insane to trust systemd for this. timedated isn't an improvement, it's just a new attempt at the code. In five years, you can recommend it. For the moment, let's leave systems code to the people who understand it.

microcolonel 12y ago
Blah, blah, blah. You shouldn't discount everyone but the OpenBSD guys just because ntp.org's ntp is a 200kloc overgrown, underengineered mess. It offers a good out for people who would otherwise use ntp.org's ntp, and at least it's about 200x less complex(1056 lines of C). Stasticially speaking, it's unlikely to be as faulty. Timedated is an improvement even if just for the fact that it's incredibly simple to operate. You press a button and you're synchronized; very little to mess up. I use OpenNTPD on my OpenBSD boxes, but that doesn't make me immune to alternatives.
- gonzo 12y ago
  Unfortunately, the OpenBSD "community" is all over HN.

agwa 12y ago

You're being downvoted because this article is about the security of NTP implementations, yet your basis for recommending systemd-timesyncd is that it "works really well" for you. Well, ntpd worked well for me too but that didn't make it secure. You offer no basis for thinking systemd-timesyncd is secure, and yet there are many indications that it might be insecure: 1.) it's new, 2.) it wasn't designed with security in mind (unlike openntpd), and 3.) systemd's other reimplementation of a complex, hard-to-secure, UDP-based protocol (DNS) was discovered to lack even the most basic security protections[1]. Even someone who likes systemd's init system functionality should think really hard before using systemd's DNS and NTP appendages. This kind of stuff needs the attention of security experts. It can't just be reimplemented as an afterthought and be secure. [1] http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2014/q4/592 http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2014/q4/592

Ded7xSEoPKYNsDd 12y ago
It being a simple NTP client and not a server means that it has a vastly reduced attack surface. That's good. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't wait and see how buggy it actually is.
- digi_owl 12y ago
  And their named DNS daemon was to be a stub resolver. Then it grew a cache. And now it seems to have developed a insecurity that most other DNS daemons out there dealt with a decade ago...

dfc 12y ago

And if the one server timesyncd selects is a falseticker it will keep you there (where there is not equal to UTC) indefinitely too. If you want an alternative check out chrony: http://chrony.tuxfamily.org/ http://chrony.tuxfamily.org/

fsniper 12y ago

Oh I'm very keen on to see "I am using an optional email client packaged with systemd!". Good times for Linux community. Next debate recommendation from me: Should we call distributions GNU/Linux or systemd/Linux?