similar to: 2009 Google Summer of Code

Hello, Please pardon me if this is off topic, but I thought I ought to introduce myself. I submitted an application (aka student proposal) to OpenSSH via GSoC on Thursday (2009-04-02 19:39:21Z). Of course, I cannot know if it will be accepted, but in any case, here is the abstract for anybody on the list who may be interested in offering feedback: The objective of the OpenSSH sftp(1)

Hi, I am sorry that just now I give the wrong URL which is a private mood. The next URLs are right: Update the SAFCode project to the new LLVM API http://socghop.appspot.com/gsoc/student_proposal/show/google/gsoc2010/easyqiu/t127038894856 Check bounds overflow bugs in C programs based on LLVM http://socghop.appspot.com/gsoc/student_proposal/show/google/gsoc2010/easyqiu/t126993884556 ABCD:

Dear prospective GSoC students! I want to inform that this year LLVM participates in the Google Summer of Code program. The application period for GSOC begins on March 29th (check the detailed program timeline at http://socghop.appspot.com/document/show/gsoc_program/google/gsoc2010/faqs#timeline). Now it's a good time to discuss would-be projects on the relevant mailing lists. You can find

Hello, I apologize if this isn't the right place to post about the Google Summer of Code; if so, I would appreciate guidance toward the correct list. If this is the correct list, I would appreciate answers to the message below. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Jawaad Ahmad <jawaadahmad32 at webster.edu> To: djm at openssh.com Subject: OpenSSH GSoC Project Date: Thu, 19 Mar

Hi, Here are my submitted proposals, and they are still in progress. Wellcome your comments, if you have some interest in the topics. Update the SAFCode project to the new LLVM API http://socghop.appspot.com/gsoc/student_proposal/private/google/gsoc2010/easyqiu/t127038894856 Check bounds overflow bugs in C programs based on LLVM

On 2020/08/05 16:17, raf wrote: > The problem is when, for example, you only have > scp/sftp access to a remote server, such as your bank, > and you use WinSCP to transfer transaction files to > them to be actioned (people do this where I work), and > the bank hasn't properly protected themselves from this > "vulnerability". I really hope all banks do take this >

yiqiuping1986 wrote: > Hi， John Criswell！ > You have said to me that SAFECode had not been maintained for several > years, Just to clarify, SAFECode *has* been and *is* maintained (primarily by me). The release_26 branch in the SVN repository works with LLVM 2.6, and mainline is working (with some regressions) with the upcoming LLVM 2.7. You can subscribe to the SVA Commits mailing list

I almost never use bare 'scp' or 'sftp' anymore; I start with either 'rsync' or, if 'rsync' is not present and not installable on one end or the other, the "tar-over-bare-ssh" approach: ``` tar cf - localpath | ssh remote.host 'cd remotepath && tar xvf -' ``` I'd be in favor of one of the following: 1. 'scp' goes away, and

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

Hi, I was thinking about the difficulties and complexities of using chroot in scp or sftp-server, in order to limit the user in which files they can access. I've seen a lot of arguments about how it is pointless to try and secure scp or sftp (also from a logging perspective) because if we allow SSH access, the user can simply provide their own scp or sftp binary, that does not do the

Hi, John I have modified my proposal based on your suggestion. Wellcom your comments! The URL of my proposal is: http://socghop.appspot.com/gsoc/student_proposal/private/google/gsoc2010/easyqiu/t127038894856 Best Regards! Qiuping 2010-04-08 yiqiuping1986 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Tue, 2020-06-23 at 08:06 +0200, Markus Friedl wrote: > I had something in mind like this for years, but with slightly > different steps: > My naive approach would be to keep the scp user interface and switch > to the sftp protocol internally. We could add a -M [scp|sftp] option > to scp and select the internal protocol. Later we switch the default > from scp to sftp. > No

Hello all, I've taken a brief skim of the archives available on theaimsgroup and talked to some others regarding the ideas on chroot SSH/SFTP/SCP functionality. I've also investigated a few of the various patches out for chroot sftp|scp|ssh and am a bit of a loss at finding 'an elegant solution' to the problem. Bearing in mind the excellent starting ground of John Furman's

Hi, my goal: sftp/scp only access, without the need for linux users. I want to provide 10 sftp/scp directories to 10 people. Let's call this "virtual account" I don't want to create linux users for each of them. I would like to create one linux user (backup_user). In his home-directory will be 10 directories. For each "virtual account" one directory. Every

Hi, On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 08:26:39PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 12:00:48PM -0800, Jim Knoble wrote: > > 3. 'scp' stays, but becomes the CLI for SFTP, and the SCP protocol breaks. > > Why does "scp becomes the CLI for SFTP" necessitate "the SCP protocol > breaks"? The way scp works today is "run ssh to the remote,

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

On Thu, 2019-01-24 at 12:27 -0600, Ben Lindstrom wrote: > I know it isn't a "UI replacement" but it at least provides a more > complete UI for phasing people off of scp. I don't think this is an ideal solution... OpenSSH should be "overall" secure (that's what it's meant for), and especially not be a collection of tools/algos/etc. of which some(!) are

scp may be an ugly protocol, but it works, works nicely from a command line, and is quite convenient. FTP (and, presumably, sftp) is not nearly as convenient. Why do you think your recommendation to "use sftp instead" keeps falling on the deaf ear? Usability, perhaps? Perhaps it's time to stop preaching to people about what they should use, but instead - if you really want a change

Hi, We are delighted to accept Carlos Silva's proposal to renovate sftp(1) as part of the Google Summer of Code. Many of the ~40 applications we received were of high quality and choosing the best one from the top five was particularly difficult. Unfortunately, since this is our first time through the GSoC and because we only have one "full-time" mentor (me), we are only able to

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 07:39, Philip Prindeville <philipp_subx at redfish-solutions.com> wrote: [...] > Problem is that if their default shell isn't sh, ash, dash, bash, zsh, etc. then things break. > Is there a workaround to allow scp/sftp to continue to work even for non-shell accounts? sftp should work regardless of the user's shell since it is invoked as a ssh subsystem