2003-09-17T08:17:43 Bennett Todd:
> 2003-09-16T21:16:34 Blue Boar:
> > Out of curiosity, what leads you to believe that lshd will be
> > better in terms of future bugs vs. OpenSSH?
>
> Good question.
Better question; thanks to a tip from a friend, I can provide
concrete evidence to the contrary.
This command:
dd if=/dev/urandom bs=1024 count=1|nc <hostname> 22 >/dev/null
takes down an lsh-1.5.2 reliably taking no more than 2-3 tries on
average.
The same, both in the above form and with 10kb of urandom per blat,
doesn't bother openssh-3.7.1 for hundreds of tries.
I tried emailing this to lsh-bugs, got some moronic thing from some
idiot third-party anti-spam service "please send this special email
to this special place and we might think about letting your message
through". Right.
So much for lshd, at least for now. Back to the patch-n-grind of
openssh.
Anybody know of an ssh implementation --- even just the server side
--- that's actually tight clean secure code?
-Bennett
Attachment:
pgp00042.pgp
Description: PGP signature