On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 5:34 AM, flittermice <flitterm...@gmx.at> wrote:
> Hello Nick, > > thanks for the clarification! So libssl2 ist to blame - seems to be a > little > antiquated... > libssh2, not libssl2. It hasn't been overly-active, but has seen some development in the past year. libssh, which is the other option, isn't terribly active, either. It has a more recent release, earlier this year. I would not consider libssh2 antiquated, though - SSH as a protocol is fairly stable and does not change frequently, so there isn't much reason for there to be frequent development on client libraries. Also, looks like libssh2 might be preparing for a release - the git repo has bumped to 1.8.0 recently. It looks like there are some requests out there in the libssh2 github repo for support for some other key types. They are fairly old in origin, but are still be actively discussed. Here's one example: https://github.com/libssh2/libssh2/issues/39 > > Thanks for the proposal to add some documentation. > I would suggest the description of the parameter "private-key": > - a reference to libssl2 > - Maybe you could also write that the private key has to be pasted as text. > Many people believe that a filename has to be given. > > I will take a look and see about putting some of that language in there. I think the proper place for libssh2 references would actually be higher up in the ssh section, as it impacts not only host keys but also supported ciphers, key exchange methods, and hashes. -Nick
