Re: Erm, since everyone managed to HIJACK my sshd thread! ;)

On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 09:08:08PM -0700, Jordan Hubbard wrote: BTW, what I'm suggesting here is the equivilent of the no_fake_prompts setting in pam_opie.so found in -CURRENT. Basically, if the flag is set, Again, by all means, generate some diffs and we'll look 'em over. I'm far less

Re: Erm, since everyone managed to HIJACK my sshd thread! ;)

On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Joshua Goodall wrote: On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 09:08:08PM -0700, Jordan Hubbard wrote: BTW, what I'm suggesting here is the equivilent of the no_fake_prompts setting in pam_opie.so found in -CURRENT. Basically, if the flag is set, Again, by all means, generate

Re: Erm, since everyone managed to HIJACK my sshd thread! ;)

Dag-Erling Smorgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -hackers is not the appropriate forum for code review. The patch is incorrect and should be backed out. Never mind, I did it myself. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe

Re: Erm, since everyone managed to HIJACK my sshd thread! ;)

That was uncalled for. Dag-Erling Smorgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -hackers is not the appropriate forum for code review. The patch is incorrect and should be backed out. Never mind, I did it myself. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to

Re: Erm, since everyone managed to HIJACK my sshd thread! ;)

Sigh. I responded privately, but I see a plethora of mis-informed response also. Please commit the fix to the S/Key code, rather than disabling challenge response protocol behavior. There's nothing wrong with supporting the challenge/response parts of the protocol, and it's even desirable from

Re: Erm, since everyone managed to HIJACK my sshd thread! ;)

BTW, what I'm suggesting here is the equivilent of the no_fake_prompts setting in pam_opie.so found in -CURRENT. Basically, if the flag is set, then OPIE doesn't generate fake prompts for users that don't have OPIE enabled. If the flag is disabled, OPIE will generate prompts for the users to

Re: Erm, since everyone managed to HIJACK my sshd thread! ;)

Provide me a diff and I'll be happy to review it. I'm not really sure what you're talking about here and a context diff would remove any ambiguity. - Jordan Sigh. I responded privately, but I see a plethora of mis-informed response also. Please commit the fix to the S/Key code, rather than

Re: Erm, since everyone managed to HIJACK my sshd thread! ;)

BTW, what I'm suggesting here is the equivilent of the no_fake_prompts setting in pam_opie.so found in -CURRENT. Basically, if the flag is set, Again, by all means, generate some diffs and we'll look 'em over. I'm far less interest in debating this in abstract terms and at least Joshua

Re: Erm, since everyone managed to HIJACK my sshd thread! ;)

Right now, policy differs between branches. releng_4's openssh gives a commented alternative in the config, whilst head's gives a commented default. Thanks, these changes look good (and better than what I was proposing). Since they're both somewhat different, I'll commit them in tandem but

Erm, since everyone managed to HIJACK my sshd thread! ;)

I'm going to commit the following in 48 hours unless someone can convince me that it's a good idea for FreeBSD to be the odd-OS out with respect to this behavior: Index: sshd_config === RCS file:

Re: Erm, since everyone managed to HIJACK my sshd thread! ;)

* Jordan Hubbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020423 11:39] wrote: I'm going to commit the following in 48 hours unless someone can convince me that it's a good idea for FreeBSD to be the odd-OS out with respect to this behavior: Please do it. Index: sshd_config

Re: Erm, since everyone managed to HIJACK my sshd thread! ;)

PLEASE commit this :-) It's so annoying. Ken On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Jordan Hubbard wrote: I'm going to commit the following in 48 hours unless someone can convince me that it's a good idea for FreeBSD to be the odd-OS out with respect to this behavior: Index: sshd_config

Re: Erm, since everyone managed to HIJACK my sshd thread! ;)

In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jordan Hubbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed: I'm going to commit the following in 48 hours unless someone can convince me that it's a good idea for FreeBSD to be the odd-OS out with respect to this behavior: If someone objects, let me know and I'll pay them a visit with a

Re: Erm, since everyone managed to HIJACK my sshd thread! ;)

FWIW, I agree with you, but I'm more interested in fixing this right now than I am in chasing the OpenSSH maintainers around with patches (unless we've already forked - have we?). I'll also be happy to change this twice if it turns out that getting the change into OpenSSH is easier than I

Re: Erm, since everyone managed to HIJACK my sshd thread! ;)

Have we forked OpenSSH? Can I just make the change to our local tree? I really don't want to have to deal with the OpenSSH folks over at openbsd.org. They bite. :) - Jordan --6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, Apr 23, 2002

Re: Erm, since everyone managed to HIJACK my sshd thread! ;)

We have an openssh maintainer? Right now, policy differs between branches. releng_4's openssh gives a commented alternative in the config, whilst head's gives a commented default. A consistent change to -stable would be: Index: servconf.c