Re: OpenVPN no more --client-(dis)connect scripts can be executed

[Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@ipfire.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 23290 bytes --]

Hello,

Has OpenVPN finally been integrated into stock Android, or is this a custom version (like Lineage) or a userspace application?

Best,
-Michael

> On 12 Oct 2020, at 12:28, Adolf Belka <ahb.ipfire(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> On 12/10/2020 12:45, Michael Tremer wrote:
>> Hi,
>>> On 11 Oct 2020, at 15:16, ummeegge <ummeegge(a)ipfire.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> sorry for the late replay but things are going to be a little chaotic
>>> this days :-) .
>>> 
>>> Am Donnerstag, den 08.10.2020, 19:18 +0200 schrieb Adolf Belka:
>>>> Hi Michael,
>>>> 
>>>> I suspect you are right about my optimism but that is my nature :)
>>> That´s great :-) , would you like to step into some more testing rounds :D -->
>>> https://community.ipfire.org/t/openvpn-2-5-development-version/2173
>>> ?
>> Can we not keep development stuff on the development list please?
>> community.ipfire.org is a support portal and loads of people download all sorts of things and crash their systems with it, or never update them. I am all for having people involved in testing, but only after we have reached some sort of standard that is good enough for a larger group of testers.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Adolf.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 08/10/2020 16:26, Michael Tremer wrote:
>>>>> Hello boys,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Great conversation here, but unfortunately this is going to be
>>>>> messy...
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 8 Oct 2020, at 14:23, Adolf Belka <ahb.ipfire(a)gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Erik,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 08/10/2020 10:11, ummeegge wrote:
>>>>>>> Good morning Michael,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Am Mittwoch, den 07.10.2020, 13:38 +0100 schrieb Michael
>>>>>>> Tremer:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> That reads awful.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> yes indeed it also feels exactly like this if there is the need
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> handle it for the community in a good proper way.
>>>>>>> I really can not understand why directives like --cipher needs
>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>> changed to --data-ciphers, from the OpenVPN perspective it
>>>>>>> might be a
>>>>>>> better understanding if there is a difference between control
>>>>>>> channel
>>>>>>> and data channel encryption but from the users point of view
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> several hundreds clients it is overkill since every client
>>>>>>> config needs
>>>>>>> then to be changed.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am not sure that this is as major an issue as you indicate,
>>>>>> although I could very easily be wrong, so I thought it was
>>>>>> worthwhile to give my input.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Firstly, the --cipher option has been indicated that it will be
>>>>>> deprecated (
>>>>>> https://community.openvpn.net/openvpn/wiki/CipherNegotiation) but
>>>>>> without any date. It does not show up yet in the Deprecated
>>>>>> options page (
>>>>>> https://community.openvpn.net/openvpn/wiki/DeprecatedOptions)
>>>>>> This states "we will try to keep an up-to-date list of all
>>>>>> options       we have deprecated, when they will be removed, the
>>>>>> new alternative approach and the reasoning behind removing the
>>>>>> option".
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, I suppose we will have to re-implement the whole cipher
>>>>> selection on our side then. We will have to remove --ncp-disable
>>>>> and —cipher and start adding —data-ciphers. A select box where
>>>>> multiple algorithms can be chosen (like in IPsec) is probably the
>>>>> best option, and we can select AES-{256,128}-{GCM,CBC} and
>>>>> potentially BF if we find a user that is still on it. We would have
>>>>> to deprecate the latter already though.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We should then be able to support a maximum of clients according to
>>>>> this
>>>>> https://community.openvpn.net/openvpn/wiki/CipherNegotiation#Serverversion2.5
>>> 
>>> As far as i can see now with the testing results from RC2, we can run
>>> the old configurations like before which includes a lot of deprecation
>>> warnings in the logs but it should nevertheless work... The rest, like
>>> Michael mentioned it, should be done better earlier than later.
>>> But besides of that i am really really not sure what happens with the
>>> actual version on Smartphones since i do not uses such.
>> I do not think that too many people use OpenVPN on mobile devices because it does not provide a native client and all clients that I have tried were a little fiddly.
> 
> 
> I use OpenVPN on my Samsung phone. I am using the OpenVPN for Android app and that seems to work very well for me. So I would be happy to test out my mobile link on any updates to OpenVPN that reach the appropriate testing stage.
> 
> 
>> I think we should start dropping old crypto now. This is an easy change and we can get people on AES. That will be with us for the foreseeable future.
>> I am happy to either show a warning for about 6 months and to encourage people to move away from BF, DES, SEED, etc. And then remove these in around March-April time for good. We have already marked those ciphers as weak and I would propose to remove all of them.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Under no circumstances is it feasible that we require the client to
>>>>> change. We have users out there with hundreds and hundreds of
>>>>> connections. It simply is not possible for them to change them. It
>>>>> will take years. OpenVPN simply seems to be forgetting this.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think that means that it will likely not be removed till
>>>>>> OpenVPN v2.7 at earliest.
>>> It was a fast way from 2.3 to 2.4 and am sure the way to 2.7 will be
>>> done faster and there are indeed a lot of configurations out there
>>> which uses --ns-cert-type even there are warnings findable in the WUI.
>>> 
>>> Apart from that according to the log messages i think we have also some
>>> stuff to solve until 2.6 like the --ncp-disable deprecation -->
>>> https://community.ipfire.org/t/openvpn-2-5-development-version/2173/2
>>> ?
>> Yes, let’s start with the ciphers/NCP ones first, because that will be released earlier.
>> Changing ns-cert-type on the server side should still allow clients to connect that use an older version, am I right?
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Potentially, but we need to prepare ourselves and our users before
>>>>> that. Whenever we release 2.7, it will simply be too late, because
>>>>> then the deprecated options have already gone. We need to act now,
>>>>> and make sure that a client with a modern configuration can connect
>>>>> to a server - now and in the future.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I find it brilliant that OpenVPN has a whole page to describe the
>>>>> deprecation of one option. Although I agree with the cipher
>>>>> negotiation, there has to be a migration path.
>>> Yes, me too..
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Secondly
>>>>>> https://github.com/OpenVPN/openvpn/blob/master/doc/man-sections/cipher-negotiation.rst
>>>>>> states "OpenVPN 2.5 will only allow the ciphers specified in --
>>>>>> data-ciphers.       To ensure backwards compatibility also if a
>>>>>> cipher is specified using the --cipher option it is automatically
>>>>>> added to this list. If both options are unset the default is AES-
>>>>>> 256-GCM:AES-128-GCM."
>>> Like above explained, The last tests here (RC2) did not have problems
>>> with the --cipher directive even the log fires the warning that it is
>>> deprecated... but am not sure how the 2.5.0 release behavior is since
>>> the beta releases do have noticable changes to the RC ones and again i
>>> have no experiences with Smartphones and the new version...
>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In my OpenVPN for Android client this is what happens. --cipher
>>>>>> has AES-256-GCM from my client config that I transferred from
>>>>>> IPFire but also has --data-ciphers with AES-256-GCM:AES-128-
>>>>>> GCM:AES-256-GCM, so the contents of my --cipher have been copied
>>>>>> across to the end of --data-ciphers.
>>> That might be interessting if the server do not reflects this ? My
>>> testings involves only PCs/laptops which uses the config files without
>>> own interactions/enhancements...
>> That is not a big problem. Just make clear what you tested and what you could not test when posting patches. Then, somebody else can fill in the gaps.
>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If users are using a strong encryption, such as AES-256-GCM then
>>>>>> this is the default anyway. If people have a weaker encryption in
>>>>>> --cipher such as BF-CBC, CAST or RC2, then currently that will
>>>>>> also be copied across to --data-ciphers but from OpenVPN v2.6
>>>>>> those encryptions will not be copied across as they have been
>>>>>> deprecated as too weak for some time. The other encryptions will
>>>>>> still be copied across from --cipher to --data-cipher.
>>> If someone uses those algorithms they do not care really about
>>> security, IPFire lined that out as "(weak)" but in fact they are
>>> broken, but the differences between Smartphones and regular clients are
>>> may important to focus on...
>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Eventually, when --cipher is removed (timing still to be defined)
>>>>>> then users may need to ensure that --data-ciphers contains the
>>>>>> encryptions they want to use if they are not using the default of
>>>>>> AES-256-GCM and AES-128-GCM on the IPFire OpenVPN server.
>>> There is meanwhile more, 2.5 offers also CHACHA20-POLY1305 for the data
>>> channel but also BLAKE2 and SHA3 for the controll channel which are
>>> potential candiates for a future default ?!
>> To be honest, I do not care about them. AES has the advantage of hardware acceleration on all platforms and it is probably too early to roll out SHA3 as default.
>> We can add them after we got rid of the legacy ones and finished the NCP migration. Tackle one problem at a time. If we change too many things, we won’t be able to test things easily.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Having a blog post about the removal of BF-CBC and CAST5-CBC with
>>>>>> OpenVPN v2.6 and the need for anyone using those ciphers would be
>>>>>> a good idea because anyone concerned about their VPN security
>>>>>> would not want to be using those ciphers any more.
>>> May a good idea even this has been meanwhile longer time ago announced
>>> but also outlined in the WUI.
>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So, yes the deprecation of --cipher will eventually give a need
>>>>>> to update client configs if the default strong ciphers are not
>>>>>> being used but the timing is not yet critical. We need to keep an
>>>>>> eye on the Deprecated Options page on the OpenVPN Wiki.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Not critical, but clients are normally not being updated. And if,
>>>>> very very slowly.
>>> Exactly! Or in other words, who read the documentation/blog_posts and
>>> acts like recommended ?!
>> Some people do, but it isn’t always possible. In this case: You cannot simply change the cipher unless you can update all your clients at the same time. People’s hands are tied.
>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Please let me have your feedback, especially if I have made an
>>>>>> error in my analysis and interpretation.
>>>>> 
>>>>> No, I think you are just a little bit more optimistic than I am :)
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Adolf.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Also, if --topology net30 will be dropped by OpenVPN we need to
>>>>>>> modify
>>>>>>> every CCD configuration which uses --ifconfig-push out there
>>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>> we get an
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Wed Oct  7 17:14:29 2020 /sbin/ip addr add dev tun0 10.18.5.2/-
>>>>>>> 1 broadcast 255.255.255.254
>>>>>>> Error: any valid prefix is expected rather than "10.18.5.2/-1".
>>>>>>> Wed Oct  7 17:14:29 2020 Linux ip addr add failed: external
>>>>>>> program exited with error status: 1
>>>>>>> Wed Oct  7 17:14:29 2020 Exiting due to fatal error
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> , which logic should we use to distribute the IPs?! Did some
>>>>>>> tests with
>>>>>>> new CCD configs and topology subnet but run in other currently
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> identifiable problems like:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Wed Oct  7 17:19:44 2020 /sbin/ip route add 192.168.5.0/24 via
>>>>>>> 10.25.18.1
>>>>>>> Error: Nexthop has invalid gateway.
>>>>>>> Wed Oct  7 17:19:44 2020 ERROR: Linux route add command failed:
>>>>>>> external program exited with error status: 2
>>>>>>> Wed Oct  7 17:19:44 2020 Initialization Sequence Completed
>>>>> 
>>>>> This seems to be broken.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If we change to “subnet”, we would simply lease one IP address from
>>>>> the allocated subnet to this client and that is it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I could not find anything that tells us that “ifconfig-push” won’t
>>>>> work any more. However, it currently looks like this for a client:
>>>>> 
>>>>> ifconfig-push 10.191.0.2 10.191.0.1
>>>>> 
>>>>> The first IP address is the one that the user has selected for the
>>>>> client and the second one is the one that is getting assigned to
>>>>> the server.
>>> I think there is more but we should deliver that one may to bugzilla
>>> then and may it is possibly also a good idea to wait until the release
>>> and check for potential changes ?
>> We should start now on what we can do now. Why wait?
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The documentation says that the second part has to be replaced by
>>>>> the subnet mask.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So that means we will have to migrate all those files manually when
>>>>> the update is being applied. This can all be done on the server and
>>>>> therefore won’t break the client configuration. Phew.
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> which seems to be a kernel or an iproute problem on the client
>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> https://community.openvpn.net/openvpn/ticket/1086
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> even it connects.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> There is a little time for the most stuff left cause this will
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> initially a problem with OpenVPN version 2.6 , also, the tested
>>>>>>> 2.5
>>>>>>> versions are RCs and so may some changes can happen too but
>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>> currently not much to say from my side except arrgh .
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Can we please create individual tickets for the individual
>>>>>>>> problems
>>>>>>>> and assign someone to work on those (I assume that would be
>>>>>>>> you Erik
>>>>>>>> :D).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Will go for it but as far as i can see we would need possibly
>>>>>>> some more
>>>>>>> help, may Alexander is around for the CCD section ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yes, it is a good idea to reach out to him as soon as we have a
>>>>> plan.
>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We need to coordinate this and future-proof OpenVPN as best
>>>>>>>> as we
>>>>>>>> can, but it looks like we will break client configuration -
>>>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As far as i can see it now, yes we will break client
>>>>>>> configurations
>>>>>>> finally with OpenVPN version 2.6 .
>>>>> 
>>>>> We probably won’t be able to support it all the way back to Core
>>>>> Update 1. But I suppose we need to try and prepare the currently
>>>>> issued configuration files so that clients will work when they
>>>>> update soon.
>>> 2.5 was working with RC2 also with the conventional configs as far as i
>>> can see but i haven´t tested Smartphones since i do not use them...
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> If we have to do that and there is no way to avoid it, we
>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>> make our users aware of that of course and give the enough
>>>>>>>> time to
>>>>>>>> prepare for this.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yes, we did that before and i hate it to say but probably we
>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>> make this again if the OpenVPN update politics go this way. But
>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>> someone here have another idea or i haven´t interpret the
>>>>>>> upcoming
>>>>>>> changes incorrectly since there is already no manpage/wiki for
>>>>>>> OpenVPN
>>>>>>> 2.5 around...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Questions from me:
>>>>> 
>>>>> How do we migrate ns-cert-type?
>>> Create a new PKI with the approrpiate openssl.cnf entries.
>>> But there was also an idea to manually repair the PKI -->
>>> 
>>> https://community.ipfire.org/t/solved-manual-repair-pki-on-openvpn-rfc3280-issue/2326
>>> which i haven´t test and i am also not a friend of it since it mostly
>>> includes also the old values of keylengths 1024 bit host and 2048 bit
>>> for the root certificate --> shouldn´t we expand the actual values
>>> 2048/4096 may too ?
>> Oh. This is bad. We need to script the changes then. Otherwise we won’t be able to encourage users to update.
>> Having shorter key lengths is a compromise that we have to make in my opinion.
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> How do we migrate comp-lzo/compress?
>>> Should we really do this ? Since Voracle OpenVPN disables compression by default -->
>>> https://community.openvpn.net/openvpn/wiki/VORACLE?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=c269b344bb1a46a9d9ad40cdbca2fa7250a49634-1602424768-0-AZ_zX1wAAsx6JM0SGLkLW4lhhlE1I77NRrWVdljRXGvS1ijBw5O8mHtjNvPWfPbvr3ruH2YMtPO-Fc8GPgphkW2dQ2NX0karwsEVJvusnUcZXdc9rYkLiyuqsfrmfJxOPds9BXCoxPb2jA-6ElbmVE-Hyyp0FwLpa7xw_nw3gOMTDSrHnaLO9uT5_rHdSwn7Z0NhRKtzgf2eSHyNyqSu3Nd_YKk0YKvuLKqEARvIA9TBQlBKwMn6AtiUpUZSg4ghQutd-u8H4KAI8NKb-N6R0PbV_aNz7MPGTo5nl1Kczx_q
>> We cannot change this, because it is not being negotiated between the client and server. So we have to keep it enabled for users where it is currently enabled.
>> Again, we have no choice.
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> We should be fine for the rest.
>>> :-)
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> How do we get rid of this ugly certificate warning?
>>> Which one you mean ?
>> The RFC something one at the top.
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Before we start hacking the CGI, should we try to clean up some
>>>>> code? For example does the whole page not take the /24 format for
>>>>> subnets. That is a bit annoying.
>>> Pretty much, am happy if someone comes around with some help with this since there has been also some work been made, same with the RRD stuff...
>>> Have also for example outsorted the functions in ovpnmain.cgi and gave them a own openvpn-functions.pl like it was done with ids-functions.pl, this cleaned up the cgi also a little and is already available...
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I cannot even say how annoying this is - again. But we must
>>>>>>>> try our
>>>>>>>> best.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I feel you very good am not sure how to handle this without
>>>>>>> hassle the
>>>>>>> users around... sad to say but this is not a glorious job.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Together we will get it done :)
>>> Great :-) .
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Michael
>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -Michael
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Erik
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 7 Oct 2020, at 11:37, ummeegge <ummeegge(a)ipfire.org>
>>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Am Mittwoch, den 07.10.2020, 10:22 +0100 schrieb Michael
>>>>>>>>> Tremer:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7 Oct 2020, at 10:21, ummeegge <ummeegge(a)ipfire.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Michael,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mittwoch, den 07.10.2020, 09:20 +0100 schrieb
>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>>>> Tremer:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh so this is a custom thing?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously most users won’t use this. If you care much
>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>> custom script, you can write a script that searches a
>>>>>>>>>>>> directory
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> calls all scripts in it (like
>>>>>>>>>>>> /etc/init.d/networking/red.up/
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> /etc/init.d/networking/red.down/).
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> OK, will give it a try.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Another great example how OpenVPN breaks running
>>>>>>>>>>>> installations.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and there are comming some exiting new examples
>>>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>>> upcoming
>>>>>>>>>>> releases 8-| ...
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Like what?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> e.g. this
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>> https://community.ipfire.org/t/openvpn-2-5-development-version/2173/2
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>> https://community.ipfire.org/t/openvpn-2-5-development-version/2173/8
>>>>>>>>> checkout the deprecated options :-\
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> -Michael
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Michael
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Oct 2020, at 14:26, ummeegge <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ummeegge(a)ipfire.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Dienstag, den 06.10.2020, 12:58 +0100 schrieb
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tremer:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you have more than one client-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connnect/disconnect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> script
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your configuration?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case it is a email which will be fired if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (dis)connected but there are plenty of potential
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibilities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is not specified for my use case but may for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> OpenVPN
>>>>>>>>>>>>> scripting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> architecture in IPFire in general.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Erik
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Michael
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5 Oct 2020, at 16:59, ummeegge <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ummeegge(a)ipfire.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am currently in testing scenario with the new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OpenVPN-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.5_rc2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> additional --client-connect/--client-disconnect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> script.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release of OpenVPN metrics -->
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>> https://git.ipfire.org/?p=ipfire-2.x.git;a=commit;h=708f2b7368cc8fbd54a06ca66337ebdcc26b58b4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the new OpenVPN version lined out that only one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> script
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> openvpnserver[15373]: Multiple --client-connect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scripts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined.  The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously configured script is overridden.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> openvpnserver[15373]: Multiple --client-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disconnect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scripts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined.  The previously configured script is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overridden.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so a question arises (beneath a lot´s others
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OT),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we make it possible to execute more then one --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (dis)connect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> script
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so, are there may some ideas for this ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Erik