[tristor]

> he figured time syncing wasn't important enough to justify a daemon

Time synchronization is very arguable THE most important thing on a server (for numerous security related reasons).

How many moons ago was this incident? It's perhaps forgivable ignorance in the 90s... not so much today.

[Dylan16807]

For security? Kerberos usually has a 5 minute tolerance. Are you saying that's wrong? Because if your hardware/firmware isn't literally broken you won't drift anywhere near that in a day.

NTP can't properly fix a clock like that either since it's often capped at adjusting the speed by one part per two thousand. At most, with a consistently wrong clock, that can handle about 30 seconds per day. Any worse than that and you won't see much advantage over ntpdate.

[randomswede]

The bigger the clock skew, the harder it is to correlate events from logs. The harder it is to corelate, the more information needs to come from your machine-fueled winnowing stage, to the final inspection by eyeballs.

1-2 seconds is (probably) well within manageable. But, since you now know for SUER that you have clocks running at different speeds, you need to over-estimate the skew. And hope that the daily skewing is approximately constant over time.

So, yes, clock skew can have an impact on your security, because it makes event correlation (and followup on security incidents) harder.

[Dylan16807]

"It makes logs more annoying, and sometimes security needs logs" is a pretty weak connection, though. And it's a far cry from precise timing being "THE most important thing on a server". Is there anything more direct at all?

[randomswede]

It's basically a whole bunch of small "make it harder to correlate" issues. If you have a distributed system (which you probably do, if you care about time to the point of considering if daily ntpdate or continually running ntp-or-equivalent is better), you will probably end up with timestamps somewhere in a protocol.

This could be timestamps in a DB server, or similar.

You can then, if you have too-large skew, end up in the weird position that one of "things that have been commited in the DB is not yet showing up on the frontends" (if the time used as a cut-off for the frontend's query is lagging behind the DB server and the timestamp is set by the DB server) or "things that have been commited are not showing up when you query for SELECT timestamp <= NOW()" (if the DB server is lagging, and the timestamp is set by the client).

If that maters, well, that's really a business and data quality issue.

Some distributed systems will also try to figure out what skew you have across the whole system and then end up taking N times that skew, before it can consider data persisted (see for example Spanner ,and probably CockroachDB). If your distributed system relies on timestamps for consistency, and it doesn't self-discover the skew, you're basically not guaranteed whatever consistency guarantees that the distributed system claims to have.

Again, is this important? It really depends. Is it OK of your distributed data store drops some of your data on the floor and lets you clean up the mess? Sometimes, yes, totally. Is it OK if you get uniqueness guarantees violatedl because two thigs got the same unique ID? Again, sometimes, almost-unique is enough.

Fo most people, log correlation is probably the biggest point, though.