search for: sshv1

Hi all! I was scanning my servers with nmap, ( i have installed ssh), and the result gave me this: 22/tcp open ssh sshv1: Server Supports SSHv1 ssh-keyhost: 1024 ea:7e:77:b7:a1:78:18:70:6c:46:ee:a0:dd:08:0e:74 (RSA1) 1024 ba:d0:8a:44:16:fc:7c:7a:38:24:2e:72:06:fe:99:56 (DSA) 1024 ff:43:15:78:98:3c:75:f9:12:36:58:92:46:6c:1c:99 (RSA) could this be a threat for intruders? i know that sshv1 should be avoided, bu...

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2519 Bug ID: 2519 Summary: Obsolete SSHv1 config options Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 7.1p1 Hardware: Other OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: ssh Assignee: unassigned-bugs at mindrot.org Repor...

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2044 Priority: P5 Bug ID: 2044 Assignee: unassigned-bugs at mindrot.org Summary: error message is printed for SSHv1 when ssh is forced to allocate a pseudo-tty even when it does not have a one Severity: minor Classification: Unclassified OS: All Reporter: ivo.raisr at oracle.com Hardware: All Status: NEW...

...te a bit easier as we maintain and refactor. So here are our plans. Dates are estimates only. * June 2016 Release OpenSSH 7.3. SSH protocol 1 is unchanged. We start mention these plans in the release notes to give them wider publicity. * August 2016 Release OpenSSH 7.4. Server-side support for SSHv1 is removed from our codebase. Client support remains disabled by default. * June 2017 OpenSSH removes all SSH protocol 1 support. -- So this is just over a year of notice ahead of final deprecation. After we release OpenSSH without SSHv1 support, users who absolutely need it would have to use a...

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1835 Summary: sftp should fallback to sshv1 if server doesn't support sshv2 Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 5.6p1 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: sftp AssignedTo: unassigned-bu...

On Tue, 3 May 2016, Colin Watson wrote: > Debian takes the latter approach. Specifically, we have an > "openssh-client-ssh1" binary package that includes only scp1, ssh1, and > ssh-keygen1 binaries; we do not ship any server-side SSHv1 support. I > modelled this on Fedora's approach, which is basically the same aside > from a slightly different package name. > > A number of our users are basically stuck needing to interoperate with > SSHv1-only servers that they can't update for one reason or another. &gt...

ssh-add on OpenBSD current (with malloc -S enabled) crashes ("chunk is already free") when loading my password-protected SSHv1 key (used only for testing). "ssh-add ~/.ssh/identity" also fails to format the prompt properly ("Enter passphrase for :"). The issue is as follows: Starting at ssh-add.c:158 in add_file(ac, filename = "~/.ssh/identity"), we call key_load_private(filename = "~/....

...for, that insist on using SSL, but then fail to interoperate with recent browsers. So what are you going to do? "Throw away a perfectly working and secure machine, because its out of band interface is crap" or "keep around an old and insecure browser"? Same thing with needing sshv1 to access old network gear where even sshv1 was an achievement. "Throw away gear that does its job perfectly well, but has no sshv2 for *management*" or "keep around an ssh v1 capable client"? I, for one, need to explain why I buy new gear, and "because the out of band /...

Hi, We've encountered a bug with OpenSSH 3.8.1p1 on Linux. With an account that has an empty password and with PAM and Privilege Separation turned on through the SSH1 protocol, the login fails with: fatal: mm_request_receive_expect: read: rtype 24 != type 46 I believe the problem is a missing do_pam_account() call. The patch below to auth1.c fixes the problem. If this is correct, can

...Mar 26, 2015 at 11:55:18 -0700, Dan Kaminsky wrote: > You're right. My argument the is the next build of OpenSSH should be > OpenSSH 7, and the one after that 8, then 9, then 10. No minor releases? > Sure, go ahead. Deprecate the point, > > Do you manage any machines running SSHv1? > If by "running" you mean accepting SSH1, of course not. From a security perspective, no one should be using SSH1. For those who, for whatever reason, need to support systems that only support SSH1, there are already sufficient solutions that have been noted multiple times on this...

...d space in flash memory of this device. SO what we are trying to do is reducing the size of sshd by taking out least common used things. Can someone give me input what features, version and crypto algorithm - most of recent ssh clients are using, so that we cover most of them. I already took out SSHv1, RSA and X11 from sshd. I need to reduce more in terms of size. Please guide me what-else I can safely remove without effecting major ssh clients. thanks Vikas

...e breaking changes are inserted. You assume people are slow to update anyway; some are, some aren't, what you're doing is wildly rewarding the slow updaters and punishing the fast ones. That has negative effects elsewhere. What would it hurt to announce the release in 3-6 months will drop SSHv1 to a compile time option, and that people should be running (for example) at least OpenSSH 5.9x? You've got vendor class authority here, tell people what you want and give them some time to implement your directive. The alternative is they eventually trace back why some random critical system...

Hi, I just deleted SSHv1 support in OpenBSD and portable OpenSSH. There's probably a little dead code still to be expunged, but all user-visible functionality and the bulk of the supporting infrastructure is gone. Sic transit gloria mundi. -d

...ccessfully deployed and used on internal networks that cannot be scanned from the open Internet. It's also a protocol of fairly critical importance, uniquely used in a "hop by hop" manner in which each hop actually has to work. 7.3% of Cisco routers on the open Internet only support SSHv1. The numbers inside private networks are likely to be higher. I can see the argument for pushing people to upgrade, but not by surprise in a minor version. If SSH is going to block old insecure versions it has a much bigger problem, because upgrade rates on SSH on the Internet are actually not f...

Hi, On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 02:36:50PM +0100, Hubert Kario wrote: > > Same thing with needing sshv1 to access old network gear where even sshv1 > > was an achievement. "Throw away gear that does its job perfectly well, > > but has no sshv2 for *management*" or "keep around an ssh v1 capable > > client"? > > If you depend on hardware like this, you sho...

According to documentation for a switch which I'm getting SSH enabled, I need to convert my openssh public key to an ascii string to be compatible with the switch. The switch uses sshV1. Is there a way to do this? I've found nothing in the man pages or FAQ and have tried the -x -X (-i -e) arguments without success but I think they relate to a different translation anyway. Regards Al _________________________________________________________________ ninemsn Extra Storage i...

...d reason. Aggressively breaking changes don't belong in minor versions in code of this criticality. Now threatening the breaking change, even possibly attaching a date to it, that creates the sort of pressure that actually does get servers upgraded. Two questions: 1) What is the worst known SSHv1 attack right now? 2) What is the oldest build of OpenSSH you believe is safe to operate, as a client, and as a server? Imagine there was a compliance bar -- where would you put it? I'm no fan of SSHv1, to be clear. This is exclusively process pushback. On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:10 PM, Dam...

...te: > > > You're right. My argument the is the next build of OpenSSH should be > > > OpenSSH 7, and the one after that 8, then 9, then 10. No minor releases? > > > Sure, go ahead. Deprecate the point, > > > > > > Do you manage any machines running SSHv1? > > > > > > > If by "running" you mean accepting SSH1, of course not. From a security > > perspective, no one should be using SSH1. > > > > For those who, for whatever reason, need to support systems that only > > support SSH1, there are alrea...

.../.ssh/authorized_keys on your home > server. These keys are used to authenticate the remote system, in lieu > of a password or physical token. You could put these keys on a USB > stick instead, if you didn't want to keep them permanently on the remote > hosts. > > 3. Disable SSHv1 protocol support in /etc/ssh/sshd_config: "Protocol 2", > not "Protocol 2,1". SSHv1 has known weaknesses. Boggles my mind that > it's still enabled by default.... > > 4. Same file, set "PermitRootLogin no" if it isn't already. > > (Aside: I...

My two-cents removing v1 from the server - excellent. removing it from the client - admirable, but there are many potential operational concerns as mentioned above. I'll chat a bit about personal experience with removal of something as being "more secure" when it's effect is actually lessen "security" Possible solution - even for beyond ? Create a new client that