Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 17:05:48 -0800 (PST) From: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com> To: Leif Pedersen <bilbo@hobbiton.org> Cc: Robert Simmons <rsimmons0@gmail.com>, "freebsd-security@freebsd.org" <freebsd-security@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: OpenSSH HPN In-Reply-To: <CAK-wPOh%2BNFMbh7HdYtVJYk9sPKAsaT_gqhCr2AC6FUQWcGJzhA@mail.gmail.com> References: <86io5a9ome.fsf@desk.des.no> <20151110175216.GN65715@funkthat.com> <56428C84.8050600@FreeBSD.org> <20151111014102.GQ65715@funkthat.com> <CA%2BQLa9DD7PQm0Rsvn3D75%2BbJU_GgJxYbHHvd6Qsr5ky_C3WQqw@mail.gmail.com> <CAK-wPOh%2BNFMbh7HdYtVJYk9sPKAsaT_gqhCr2AC6FUQWcGJzhA@mail.gmail.com>
| previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Trustworthy networks do exist. They just aren't the same networks as 20 > years ago. They do of course but is that really relevant considering how rare verifyably trustworthy networks are, particularly in light of what we know about NONE cipher usage? The same logic applies to SCTP. It is little used, has been the source of multiple vulnerabilities, but still exists in GENERIC. Since both of these security issues can be easily compiled around I only wonder why FreeBSD doesn't default to the more secure defaults. Roger Marquis
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?>