search for: offwriting

PKCS#11 support for ECC should have been integrated years ago. Let's not complicate it now, just integrate the existing patches so that people stuck with EC keys at least can use them somehow... Jan Sent from my iPhone > On 14 Aug 2018, at 17:04, Ben Lindstrom <mouring at offwriting.org> wrote: > > Wasn't there a proposal at one time to create something like AuthorizedKeysCommand for PKSC11 and other methods that required more complex backend processed so it could be externalized and OpenSSH could be simplified? > > Ben > > Damien Miller wrote: >...

Il giorno dom 4 nov 2018 alle ore 01:45 Ben Lindstrom <mouring at offwriting.org> ha scritto: > > I don't see it as a bug. Yes, this is why I put a question mark in the subject. > As if I'm writing a batch script I want to see the echo of the command and the output so if there is a failure I know where the failure is. I see: you have a single batch fi...

> On 5 Aug 2016, at 18:09, James Murphy <james.murphy.debian at gmail.com> wrote: > > The more mainstream thing to do is just use gpg, which has this > functionality already built in. Is this not suitable for your use case? The advantage of Colin's approach is that gpg requires out of band exchange of gpg keys separately from ssh keys. If you already have ssh keys

Ben, Thanks for the tip! I've added the patch to Bug 2705 on bugzilla. Cheers, Ethan On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Ben Lindstrom <mouring at offwriting.org> wrote: > > The mailinglist strips out attachments. So either you need to add it to > the bug or post it in-line to the email. > > Ben > > Ethan Rahn wrote: > > Darren, > > Thanks, evidently I need to practice my reading skills. I did some practice > on...

Darren, Thanks, evidently I need to practice my reading skills. I did some practice on the style guide, and I believe that I have the patch fixed up per the style guidelines. I've attached the new patch to this email for review. Cheers, Ethan On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 5:02 AM, Darren Tucker <dtucker at zip.com.au> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Ethan Rahn <ethan.rahn at

...nsition while 'scp' and 'scp2' coexisted. ____________________ [*]: For example, "sput", "scpx", or for fun, "Secure Copying Remote Artifacts Program" = "scrap". -- jim knoble > On Jan 24, 2019, at 10:27, Ben Lindstrom <mouring at offwriting.org> wrote: > > Corinna Vinschen wrote on 1/24/19 6:28 AM: >> What's missing in sftp is a drop in replacement mode for copying to >> the remote server, i.e. this should work out of the box: >> >> $ sftp -rp local_dir server:path >> >> But, alas:...

On Jan 24 03:47, Malcolm wrote: > Quoting Chris High <highc at us.ibm.com>: > > > caught my eye. Do you see any 'advantage' to using sftp with an untrusted > > server? If so, any thoughts about making an easy way to disable scp both > > client and server side when doing an installation? > > SFTP allows file resume, while scp does not. If this

On Mon, 13 Aug 2018, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL wrote: > Lack of time on the Open Source projects is understandable, and not uncommon. > > However, PKCS11 has been in the codebase practically forever - the ECC > patches that I saw did not alter the API or such. It is especially > non-invasive when digital signature is concerned. > > Considering how long those patches have

Thanks, Iain. I am willing to hear from other users whether anyone else sees this as a bug before filing it. -- Vincenzo Romano Il giorno ven 2 nov 2018, 20:03 Iain Morgan <imorgan at nas.nasa.gov> ha scritto: > If you truly intend this as a bug report, you should file it at > bugzilla.mindrot.org. > > On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 12:25:22 +0100, Vincenzo Romano wrote: > >

Historically the view has been if you want NFS-like filesystem over SSH write a dedicated subsystem.? The OpenSSH project stopped following the sftp spec when it tried to "be-everyting-to-everyone" protocol instead of a clean and simple ftp/scp replacement.? As filesystem sharing protocols have oddies between platforms that add a lot of complexity and are unsuited for the original

I worked on a proposal like this a few years back (including proof of concept code).? I taught sftp to have an scp personality (closer to scp2 than scp), and it was rejected by the higher ups.? It may have been the dual-personality issue, but I know the scp2 concept was also rejected at the time as it was stated there should be one transfer tool. But the only way to drag scp into this century