Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 03:13:44PM +1100, Ian Smith:
> Nobody 'forbids' you from making such a port, for your own use and/or
> for others. See Peter Jeremy's suggestion re where it might be placed
> and what sort of dire warnings it ought to announce; I expect SO and
> ports secteam would insist o
Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 04:41:27PM -0500, Michael Toth:
> There is a non-graphical port of putty (putty-nogtk) which installs plink
That seems usable. thanks
___
freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-s
Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:15:10AM +0100, Dag-Erling Smørgrav:
> > i'm suggesting a port with a v1 client; that is built with all the other
> > binary ports for abi changes and whatever else is reasonable. yes, i
> > can build my own, but i feel it should be a port.
>
> You mean like net/tcpdump398,
Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 01:24:29PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smørgrav:
> heasley writes:
> > Dag-Erling Smørgrav writes:
> > > FreeBSD 10 supports SSHv1 and will continue to do so. FreeBSD 11
> > > and 12 do not, and neither does the openssh-portable port. I'm
> &g
Am 30.01.2017 um 14:52 schrieb jungle Boogie :
>
>> On 30 January 2017 at 14:24, heasley wrote:
>> Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 01:56:03PM -0800, jungle Boogie:
>>>> On 30 January 2017 at 11:52, heasley wrote:
>>>> Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 01:57:32PM +0100, Dag
Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 01:56:03PM -0800, jungle Boogie:
> On 30 January 2017 at 11:52, heasley wrote:
> > Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 01:57:32PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smørgrav:
> >> heasley writes:
> >> > So, what is the BCP to support a v1 client for outbound connect
Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 01:57:32PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smørgrav:
> heasley writes:
> > So, what is the BCP to support a v1 client for outbound connections on fbsd
> > 11? Hopefully one that I do not need to maintain by building a special ssh
> > from ports. Is there a
I do appreciate fbsd's and openssh's altruism with the removal of v1 support.
But, the fact is that there is equipment in the wild that does not support
v2 and never will and otherwise works perfectly fine, yet sshv1 is still a
better choice than telnet.
So, what is the BCP to support a v1 client
