dholland-t...@netbsd.org (David Holland) writes:
>(1) having an unencrypted option at all is one of the ways spooks like
>to weaken cryptosystems; it creates ways to force/cause people to use
>it when they didn't mean to.
People have to be very clear in making that choice and they actually
use it
jnem...@cue.bc.ca (John Nemeth) writes:
> I would say it is something that should be available as an
>option (likely a command line option). ssh/scp has pretty much
>completely replaced rsh/rcp (other than for people that go out of
>their way to use those); however, there are many things that
On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 05:30:36PM -0700, John Nemeth wrote:
> } I would say that doesn't really fit with what we want either, certainly
> } without somebody really trying. It breaks the rule that using ssh can
> } count on confidentiality and integrity and makes systems with ssh as a
> } com
On May 3, 13:00, Greg Troxel wrote:
} mlel...@serpens.de (Michael van Elst) writes:
}
} > Part of the HPN patches is to optionally strip encryption (and now even
} > integrity checks) for the data transfer. Doesn't fit into what
} > the OpenSSH people want, not even as an option.
}
} I would say
Dear Christos,
I am Gagan Aryan, a senior year computer science undergraduate at IIT
Kanpur, India. I came across this project - Research and integrate the
static code analysers with the NetBSD codebase on the NetBSD site. I am
interested in working on the same. I realise that this was a GSoC proj
