Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:05:32 -0600 (CST) From: Guy Helmer <ghelmer@palisadesys.com> To: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net> Cc: <cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org>, <cvs-all@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/secure/usr.sbin/sshd Makefile Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0203191253290.12151-100000@magellan.palisadesys.com> In-Reply-To: <014901c1cf76$776b0f00$d800a8c0@dwcjr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
(Cc: trimmed) On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote: > > What advantages does it have over OpenBSD's OpenSSH? > > > > Here's a quote from openssh.org > > Managing the distribution of OpenSSH is split into two teams. One team > does strictly OpenBSD-based development, aiming to produce code that is as > clean, simple, and secure as possible. The other team takes the > clean version and makes it portable, so that it will run on many operating > systems (these are known as the p releases, and named like "OpenSSH > 2.1.1p4"). Please click on the provided link for your operating system. > > > Basically the portable would require less hacking to run on freebsd. They > are Both from OpenBSD so there shouldn't be any disadvantage. The "portable" openssh contains extra code to support other non-BSD O/S's. To me, this implies the portable openssh contains code we don't need and it may have security implications. I see this as a disadvantage. Guy Helmer To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.33.0203191253290.12151-100000>