[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: openssh in other products
- To: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: openssh in other products
- From: Ken Gunderson <kgunders_(_at_)_teamcool_(_dot_)_net>
- Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 10:39:28 -0600
- Organization: Teamcool Networks
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:27:33 +0100
Stuart Henderson <stu_(_at_)_spacehopper_(_dot_)_org> wrote:
> --On 25 October 2005 10:19 -0600, Ken Gunderson wrote:
> > It would be interesting to diff the hp code against OpenSSH....
> > Knowing HP my bet is that HP's Secure Shell IS OpenSSH. Heck, IIRC,
> > they even called it that way back when....
> >From their faq:
> "What is the difference between HP-UX Secure Shell A.04.00 and OpenSSH
> 4.0p1? OpenSSH 4.0p1 is the latest free version of the SSH protocol
> suite of network connectivity tools. OpenSSH supports SSH protocol
> versions 1.3, 1.5, and 2.0.
> HP-UX Secure Shell is a binary package compiled with support for PAM,
> gssapi, krb5, libwrap, and no support for Smartcard. You can install
> and remove HP-UX Secure Shell using the SD-UX utility."
> I don't see any reason to complain that vendors actually use OpenSSH
> code, whatever they call it. The main thing is that we have a good
> solid ssh implementation running on lots of network kit, rather than
> 101 vendor implementations each with their own bugs and misfeatures...
Wasn't complaining. Just expressing my curiousity. The source used to
be available. But that also may have been only from w/in HP
internally and not outside clients. Back in early days of OpenSSH we had
to install it secretly. Couldn't let those high dollar corporate
clients find out we were using free "open source" software. Remember,
this was a long time ago. Appears that now the marketing dept. has
gotten on the bus and branded to taste. Which is fine by me.
Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon?