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

[Adolf Belka <ahb.ipfire@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 22441 bytes --]

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
>