From owner-cvs-all Tue Mar 19 11: 6: 4 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from magellan.palisadesys.com (magellan.palisadesys.com [192.188.162.211]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7587337B400; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:06:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (ghelmer@localhost) by magellan.palisadesys.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g2JJ5XL12433; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:05:33 -0600 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:05:32 -0600 (CST) From: Guy Helmer To: "David W. Chapman Jr." Cc: , Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/secure/usr.sbin/sshd Makefile In-Reply-To: <014901c1cf76$776b0f00$d800a8c0@dwcjr> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG (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