From owner-freebsd-security Tue Nov 2 6:46:39 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from india.citi.umich.edu (india.citi.umich.edu [141.211.92.147]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0689615139; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 06:46:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from provos@citi.umich.edu) Received: from citi.umich.edu (IDENT:provos@india.citi.umich.edu [141.211.92.147]) by india.citi.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA27912; Tue, 2 Nov 1999 09:46:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199911021446.JAA27912@india.citi.umich.edu> Subject: Re: OpenSSH patches From: Niels Provos In-Reply-To: Poul-Henning Kamp, Tue, 02 Nov 1999 07:13:16 +0100 To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" , Kris Kennaway , security@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, markus@openbsd.org, dugsong@openbsd.org Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 09:46:00 -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org In message <23974.941523196@critter.freebsd.dk>, Poul-Henning Kamp writes: >But if we cannot put it on the CD anyway, what is the point of using >the weaker OpenSSH rather than "the real thing" ? Why is it weaker? And what are the differences? OpenSSH talks protocol 1.5 including X11 + agent forwarding. If you had tracked bugtraq recently, you would have noticed that there was an attack that applied to normal ssh but not to OpenSSH. Actually, OpenSSH has many benefits over normal ssh. One of them, already convincing enough by itself, is the free commercial use. Greetings, Niels. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message