Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 09:04:01 -0700 From: Gregory Neil Shapiro <gshapiro@FreeBSD.org> To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/crypto/openssh atomicio.h auth-chall.c auth2-chall.c canohost.h clientloop.h groupaccess.c groupaccess.h kexdh.c kexgex.c log.h mac.c mac.h misc.c misc.h pathnames.h Message-ID: <15284.40817.364418.89517@horsey.gshapiro.net> In-Reply-To: <15284.36137.254842.551909@nomad.yogotech.com> References: <200109280133.f8S1Xr363615@freefall.freebsd.org> <20010928015644.N84277-100000@achilles.silby.com> <20010928013527.A8101@xor.obsecurity.org> <15284.36137.254842.551909@nomad.yogotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
nate> So, in other words, there is really no point in having both protocols nate> listed in the same line, since only one protocol is ever attempted. nate> A better description of the protocol line woudl be: nate> "Protocol 1" nate> *OR* nate> "Protocol 2" nate> Since in fact, it doesn't try the first protocol, and if it fails, then nate> try the second protocol. It always sticks with the primary protocol. No, it does make sense to have both. If you didn't list Protocol 1, then an older ssh (that only supports protocol 1) would not be able to login to your machine. Only one protocol is ever attempted as you said, but which one is decided by the identification given by the ssh client. 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?15284.40817.364418.89517>