similar to: [Bug 2493] New: Accept host key fingerprint as the same as 'yes'

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1759 Summary: allow display of bubblebabble fingerprint when connecting Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: -current Platform: All URL: http://bugs.debian.org/578422 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P2

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1506 Summary: rationalize agent behavior on smartcard removal/reattachment Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 5.1p1 Platform: Other OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: Smartcard AssignedTo:

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1984 Bug #: 1984 Summary: Add Unix Domain Socket Forwarding Classification: Unclassified Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 5.9p1 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P2 Component: ssh AssignedTo:

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1808 Summary: "SetupCommand" invoked before connecting Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 5.6p1 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P2 Component: ssh AssignedTo: unassigned-bugs at mindrot.org

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1777 Summary: KnownHostsCommand Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 5.5p1 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: ssh AssignedTo: unassigned-bugs at mindrot.org ReportedBy: dkg at fifthhorseman.net A

On Tue 2016-03-29 18:10:00 -0400, Damien Miller wrote: > On Tue, 29 Mar 2016, IMAP List Administration wrote: >> If you haven't already, an you please add the IP address to this message, and >> any similar messages? I'm using version 6.7p1. > > I actually added that recently. It will be in openssh-7.3, due in a > couple of months. Will it be configurable? There

hi folks: it looks like ssh-keygen -r can''t export SSHFP records for ECDSA keys: 0 dkg@pip:/tmp/cdtemp.oiRYAS$ ssh-keygen -f foobar -t ecdsa -q -P '''' 0 dkg@pip:/tmp/cdtemp.oiRYAS$ ssh-keygen -r foobar -f foobar.pub export_dns_rr: unsupported algorithm 0 dkg@pip:/tmp/cdtemp.oiRYAS$ the first number in my prompt is the return code of the last command; note that

On Fri 2015-02-06 14:30:13 -0500, Cary FitzHugh wrote: > Hence - maybe a NSS User Database extension which looks for the > public keys from a webservice (and then maybe writes them to > /tmp/<username>. No, i'm suggesting that when you want to look up the user, use NSS to find the username and map it to a numeric user ID and the other information that is typically found in

Yes, I have tried that option with no difference in behavior. It seems it ignores that option when provided. Just for reference, I am building it on RedHat 5. I have never had this issue on any previous version of OpenSSH. I use the default configuration with only the changes specified in the RHEL 5 STIG applied. I appreciate the security advice. The root account was indicated simply as an

Hi, Currently using openssh-4.5p1 on Solaris 8 in conjunction with Oracle 8i dataguard. Is there a patch available to prevent ssh returning status code 255 for a successful execution of a remote connection/command. Many Thanks, Tim Mann

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1871 Summary: ssh-askpass should be able to distinguish between a prompt for confirmation and a prompt for an actual passphrase Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 5.8p1 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal

I guess I didn't want to litter the users table either - it just seems "wrong" to be actually adding things to the host when it is really so transient. It feels like it should be LDAP-ish. Just ask the server for the keys and do a one-off authentication. But I've seen even LDAP creates the user directories. I see that 2.6 kernels can have some 4B users, which should last me a

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1869 Summary: ssh-add can no longer read from FIFOs as of 5.7p1 Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 5.8p1 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: ssh-add AssignedTo: unassigned-bugs at mindrot.org

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1498 Summary: OpenSC smartcard access should use raw public keys, not X.509 certificates Classification: Unclassified Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 5.1p1 Platform: Other OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Keywords: patch Severity: normal

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1545 Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg at fifthhorseman.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dkg at fifthhorseman.net --- Comment #15 from Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg at fifthhorseman.net> ---

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1663 Summary: Allow to use agent for distribution of public keys. Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 5.3p1 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: sshd AssignedTo: unassigned-bugs at mindrot.org

It appears there is an opportunity for a denial-of-service attack against ssh-agent when using ForwardAgent. This note describes the circumstances, and provides a patch. Background (not the vulnerability): If ssh-agent is forwarded to a compromised account, a remote attacker could use the connection to authenticate as the owner of the agent. "ssh-add -c" currently defends

Greetings everyone! I would like to know if adding support for Unix socket to sshd would be a feature that would be consider to be added upstream? (ListenAddress). One of the main reason for this question to you all is that tor now has Unix socket support for hidden services that is traffic of a hidden service can be forwarded to a Unix socket (see HiddenServicePort in tor.1). The rationale

On Fri 2015-06-12 01:52:54 -0400, Mark D. Baushke wrote: > I have communicated with Allen Roginsky on this topic and I have been given permission to post his response. > > In this message below, the 'vendor' was Darren Tucker's generated prime > that used a generator value of 5. > > -- Mark > > From: "Roginsky, Allen" <allen.roginsky at

Hi all. I have a situation that I wonder someone may have run into - or has a direction I should dig / develop in. Let's say I have a system with 1M "users". Their public keys are stored in a database, and I can access them via a web call. I have a few servers which should allow those users access. Some constraints to make it non-crazy. The users can only reverse tunnel. They