[Users] Last security patch

[Frédéric Nass]

Hello Mark,

Can you share with us the WARN or ERROR messages that had you contact 
Zimbra support initially  ? So we can check if we're also facing Ehcache 
issues on our ZCS infrastructures?

Regards,
Frédéric.

Le 19/03/2019 à 14:45, L Mark Stone a écrit :
> As regards ehcache,  I had a Support Case open with Zimbra on this, 
> and it was recommend to increase the ehcache size.
>
> This is what I have now:
>
> zimbra at my:~$ zmprov gacf | grep -i ehcach
>
> zimbraActiveSyncEhcacheExpiration: 5m
>
> zimbraActiveSyncEhcacheHeapSize: 10485760
>
> zimbraActiveSyncEhcacheMaxDiskSize: 10737418240
>
> zimbraImapActiveSessionEhcacheMaxDiskSize: 107374182400
>
> zimbraImapInactiveSessionEhcacheMaxDiskSize: 107374182400
>
> zimbraImapInactiveSessionEhcacheSize: 1048576
>
> zimbra at my:~$
>
>
> Hope that helps,
> Mark
>
> *_________________________________________________*
>
> *Another Message From...   L. Mark Stone*
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Victor d'Agostino <d.agostino.victor at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 19, 2019 9:36 AM
> *To:* David Touitou
> *Cc:* L Mark Stone; users; Info Zeta Alliance
> *Subject:* Re: [Users] Last security patch
> Hello again
>
> Security apart the article lets suppose a 
> /zimbraMemcachedClientServerList/ empty attribute is always safer, but 
> IMAP performance could be better with it because the zimbra store 
> would use the memcached service for IMAP protocol instead of EhCache.
>
> The official Zimbra guide says :
> zimbraMemcachedClientServerList : list of host:port for memcached 
> servers;*set to empty value to disable the use of memcached *
>
> I also have an empty attribute on my Zimbra 8.8.8 multi-store 
> environment. If I have I/O performance issues on my zimbra stores, 
> should I set the zimbraMemcachedClientServerList server attribute or 
> let it empty ?
>
> Why does the memcached service is better than EhCache which is memory 
> based ?
>
> Regards,
> Victor
>
>
>
> Cordialement,
> Victor d'Agostino
>
>
> Le mar. 19 mars 2019 à 14:30, David Touitou <david at network-studio.com 
> <mailto:david at network-studio.com>> a écrit :
>
>
>     > Thanks David; it wasn't clear to me that the author was saying
>     in the last
>     > section that all these exposures had been fixed.
>
>     I might be wrong.
>     But considereing there are attributed CVE numbers and patches, it
>     looks to me as standard procedure:
>      . vulnerability discovered and embargoed
>      . software company contacted
>      . software company acknowledged the vulnerability
>      . software company issued patch
>      . a couple days later, vulnerability went public with explanations
>
>     David
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.zetalliance.org/pipermail/users_lists.zetalliance.org/attachments/20190319/1bf7c151/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3607 bytes
Desc: Signature cryptographique S/MIME
URL: <http://lists.zetalliance.org/pipermail/users_lists.zetalliance.org/attachments/20190319/1bf7c151/attachment.p7s>