"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If our only alternatives are > > 1) no ssh > 2) ssh with no security > > you have advocated (2), right? It is that statement which I am > arguing against. > > No, I have advocated against including a unsecure random translator. > You are forgetting the third alternative, making ssh use its own > random pool. Assuming that it is possible, if it is possible then > this is the best solution.
I'm all for that, of course.
