Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:05:32 -0600 (CST)
From:      Guy Helmer <ghelmer@palisadesys.com>
To:        "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net>
Cc:        <cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org>, <cvs-all@FreeBSD.org>
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/secure/usr.sbin/sshd Makefile
Message-ID:  <Pine.LNX.4.33.0203191253290.12151-100000@magellan.palisadesys.com>
In-Reply-To: <014901c1cf76$776b0f00$d800a8c0@dwcjr>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
(Cc: trimmed)
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote:

> > What advantages does it have over OpenBSD's OpenSSH?
> >
>
> Here's a quote from openssh.org
>
>     Managing the distribution of OpenSSH is split into two teams. One team
> does strictly OpenBSD-based development, aiming to produce code that is as
> clean, simple, and secure as             possible. The other team takes the
> clean version and makes it portable, so that it will run on many operating
> systems (these are known as the p releases, and named like "OpenSSH
> 2.1.1p4"). Please click on the provided link for your operating system.
>
>
> Basically the portable would require less hacking to run on freebsd.  They
> are Both from OpenBSD so there shouldn't be any disadvantage.

The "portable" openssh contains extra code to support other non-BSD O/S's.
To me, this implies the portable openssh contains code we don't need and
it may have security implications.  I see this as a disadvantage.

Guy Helmer



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.33.0203191253290.12151-100000>