Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 00:53:31 +0000 From: heasley <heas@shrubbery.net> To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: heasley <heas@shrubbery.net>, freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: fbsd11 & sshv1 Message-ID: <20170203005331.GG8381@shrubbery.net> In-Reply-To: <86y3xqdxox.fsf@desk.des.no> References: <20170127173016.GF12175@shrubbery.net> <867f5c66yr.fsf@desk.des.no> <20170130195226.GD73060@shrubbery.net> <867f5bfmde.fsf@desk.des.no> <20170131201722.GH11924@shrubbery.net> <86y3xqdxox.fsf@desk.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:15:10AM +0100, Dag-Erling Smørgrav: > > i'm suggesting a port with a v1 client; that is built with all the other > > binary ports for abi changes and whatever else is reasonable. yes, i > > can build my own, but i feel it should be a port. > > You mean like net/tcpdump398, which was forked from net/tcpdump because > some people liked its output format better than that of tcpdump 4, and > then forgotten, and is known to have dozens of security vulnerabilities? I dont care what they do. They are consenting adults and could be told that the port is EoS and may have holes. seems like a different animal though; this isnt for fashion. I've transitioned everything that can be to sshv2, what remains is stuck in time.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170203005331.GG8381>