On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 04:48:52PM +1000, Howard Lowndes wrote:
> ssh version 1, ssh version 2, openssh.
ssh v2 and openssh v2.0+ and beyond both implement the secsh
standard. It is a lot more rigerous and extensible than the
pseudo-standard ssh v1 relies on.
The details are fairly technical but if you are interested the
ietf site should have the working group listed.
> What are ppls opinions on which one should be used, and more importantly,
> why?
SSH v2, and v1 now, come under restrictive licences. If you are using
ssh v1 you want to be using the lastest (without the crappy licence) that
you can find. 1.2.29 is it, iirc.
OpenSSH is what I use on machines that I have upgraded. I expect to
finish upgrading all the ssh servers I have control over to it just
before RSA expires in 4 weeks.
> I have noticed that there is an incompatibility between ssh 1.2.27 and
> openssh (the old signal 11 that I queried the other day - and it is
> definitely not hardware as it occurred on two separate pairs of machines)
There are some slight differences (command lines related) but I haven't
noitced any signal differences. Which one do you mean? Signal 11 is
normally a bug (and while compiling the kernel a hardware one)
> Could that incompatability be because I have built ssh 1.2.27 from source
> without RSA, but the openssh *may* be built _with_ RSA?
The RSA patents don't apply to Australia, so I am not sure why you even
took the trouble. In four weeks it will have expired in the US as well.
The ssh protocol (distinct from the secsh protocol) which ssh v1
implements does not, iirc, allow for different public key protocols
but only different stream protocols.
That is one of the many beneficial changes secsh makes; different public
key protocols. I recall it defaults to Diffie-Hellman.
Regards,
Anand
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
