From owner-freebsd-security Mon Jan 3 1:49:12 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from citi.umich.edu (citi.umich.edu [141.211.92.141]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C359414FB2 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 01:49:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from provos@citi.umich.edu) Received: from citi.umich.edu [141.211.92.147] by citi.umich.edu for robert+freebsd@cyrus.watson.org drankin@bohemians.lexington.ky.us green@FreeBSD.org mhw@wittsend.com dugsong@monkey.org security@FreeBSD.org openssh-unix-dev@mindrot.org with SMTP; Mon, 03 Jan 100 04:48:09 -0500 From: Niels Provos To: Robert Watson Cc: David Rankin , Brian Fundakowski Feldman , "Michael H. Warfield" , Dug Song , security@FreeBSD.org, openssh-unix-dev@mindrot.org Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 04:48:09 -0500 Subject: Re: OpenSSH protocol 1.6 proposal In-Reply-To: Robert Watson, Mon, 03 Jan 2000 02:28:33 EST Message-Id: <20000103094910.C359414FB2@hub.freebsd.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org In message , Robert Watson writes: >I agree entirely. I'd love to see a free, BSD-licensed, SSH 2.x >implementation out there. The continuing emphasis on improving the >non-standard, albeit widely deployed, SSH 1.x protocol seems to be a less >useful allocation of resources. While a free version of 1.x is extremely >useful, it's not the end-all. :-) If you can get people to upgrade to Actually, Markus' modifications for the 1.6 protocol contain elements that may be reused in a SSH 2.x implementation. I would not call it a waste of time at all. The diff is rather small, more a necessary cleanup. Greetings, Niels. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message