similar to: [Bug 1798] New: Add fsync() support to sftp/sftp-server

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2154 Bug ID: 2154 Summary: Avoid key lookup overhead when re-keying Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: -current Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: sshd Assignee: unassigned-bugs at

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1798 Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2130 --- Comment #16 from Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> --- Retarget to openssh-6.4 -- You are

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: > >

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2305 Bug ID: 2305 Summary: sshd does not accept @cert-authority when doing host based authentication. Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 6.5p1 Hardware: amd64 OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component:

No, I just think 15 years or so is more than enough time to have addressed the issue. On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 14:05:08 -0700, Dan Kaminsky wrote: > So, this isn't your problem and you don't respect the people's whose > problem it is. > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Iain Morgan <imorgan at nas.nasa.gov> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:55:18

On Thu, 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

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2211 Bug ID: 2211 Summary: Too many hostbased authentication attempts Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 6.5p1 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: ssh Assignee: unassigned-bugs at

Short description: All comands sent to server in batch mode are being echoed back along with prompt. Software Version: "OpenSSH_7.9p1, OpenSSL 1.1.1 11 Sep 2018" (as printed by ssh -V) Server and client systems: ArchLinux x86_64 fully updated as of 2018-11-02. ## How to reproduce Provided that you have proper SSH key authentication in place, from command line run: echo "dir

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1039 Iain Morgan <imorgan at nas.nasa.gov> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |imorgan at nas.nasa.gov --- Comment #13 from Iain Morgan <imorgan at nas.nasa.gov> --- My apologies for

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2137 Bug ID: 2137 Summary: progress meter shows wrong speed during resume Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: -current Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: minor Priority: P5 Component: sftp Assignee: unassigned-bugs at

> > Message: 8 > Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 12:46:50 -0700 > From: Iain Morgan <imorgan at nas.nasa.gov> > To: Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> > Cc: "openssh-unix-dev at mindrot.org" <openssh-unix-dev at mindrot.org> > Subject: Re: Call for testing: OpenSSH-6.3 > Message-ID: <20130730194649.GC18047 at linux124.nas.nasa.gov> >

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1798 Daniel Black <daniel.subs at internode.on.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |daniel.subs at internode.on.ne | |t -- You are receiving

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2062 Bug ID: 2062 Summary: Add support for a ForceShell sshd option Classification: Unclassified Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: -current Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: sshd

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1462 Summary: Unaligned access warnings on IA64 when using umac-64 Classification: Unclassified Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 5.0p1 Platform: Itanium2 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: ssh AssignedTo:

Hello, I would like to know whether OpenSSH supports x509 certificate based authentication. It looks like OpenSSH has dependency on OpenSSL so does this mean that OpeSSH also supports x509 certificate based authentication. If it does support, can you please point me to the necessary documentation. Thanks Naitik

Hi, OpenSSH 2.9p2 behaves differently with 'PermitRootLogin without-password' than does SSH 2.2.27 with 'PermitRootLogin nopwd': nopython.imorgan 153> ssh root at sun523 root at sun523's password: ROOT LOGIN REFUSED FROM nopython.nas.nasa.gov nopython.imorgan 154> ssh root at sun566 root at sun566's password: Permission denied. In the case of OpenSSH, you simply

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2150 Bug ID: 2150 Summary: Recursive upload expects target directory to already exist Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: -current Hardware: Other OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: sftp

On 29 September 2017 at 11:05, Iain Morgan <imorgan+openssh at nas.nasa.gov> wrote: [...] > This is due to my shell being csh, which is pickier about undefined > variables than the Bourne-style shells. The attached patch fixes the > issue. Thanks for figuring this out. > - 'test -z "$SSH_USER_AUTH"' || fail "SSH_USER_AUTH present" > +

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1798 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rjones at redhat.com --- Comment #14 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones at redhat.com> --- I just came

> At one point, I had wondered about separating out the client and server > support as well. At first glance, that would seem to help move things > forward and would address most of the reported use cases. However, I > have some users who would need the client support as well. > > I suspect that adding the server support first might be a problem for > the developers. Such a