From owner-freebsd-security Thu Jun 27 14:53: 1 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F25EF37B400 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 14:52:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by flood.ping.uio.no (Postfix, from userid 2602) id 05B375361; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 23:52:50 +0200 (CEST) X-URL: http://www.ofug.org/~des/ X-Disclaimer: The views expressed in this message do not necessarily coincide with those of any organisation or company with which I am or have been affiliated. To: "JP Villa (Datafull.com)" Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Re[2]: openssh OR openssh-portable References: <3D1AD7C4.9020909@cerint.pl> <41256714305.20020627163946@datafull.com> From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 27 Jun 2002 23:52:49 +0200 In-Reply-To: <41256714305.20020627163946@datafull.com> Message-ID: Lines: 14 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "JP Villa (Datafull.com)" writes: > I think the original question was pointing to this too, > so I rephrase: openssh or openssh-portable? or maybe > openssh 3.4 properly merged on a production codebase? and > in that case, when? In my opinion, the latter is the best option, but it's your machine and your call. Jacques Vidrine has the final word in this matter, and I can't speak for him, but I expect 3.4 will hit -STABLE (and hopefully the security branches) sometime next week. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message