Re: Patching a SSH 'Weakness'

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: <ge7r85o02@...>
Cc: <misc@...>
Date: Friday, September 12, 2008 - 5:50 pm

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, ge7r85o02@sneakemail.com wrote:

> Just off the top of my head (I have to check the SSH protocol yet):

Then we wouldn't be able to play nethack over ssh.

> In addition, if the cipher is a block cipher, padding is added to make

We already pad, and add extra random padding when echo is off - which
is when a user is most likely to be typing in a password.

> The drawback is that the padding part could mean that we are no longer

Actually we are.

-d

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Patching a SSH 'Weakness', , (Thu Sep 11, 4:00 am)
Re: Patching a SSH 'Weakness', Damien Miller, (Fri Sep 12, 5:50 pm)
Re: Patching a SSH 'Weakness', (private) HKS, (Thu Sep 11, 11:49 am)
Re: Patching a SSH 'Weakness', Ryan Corder, (Thu Sep 11, 12:53 pm)
Re: Patching a SSH 'Weakness', Vadim Zhukov, (Thu Sep 11, 4:55 am)
Re: Patching a SSH 'Weakness', Andreas Kahari, (Thu Sep 11, 4:42 am)
Re: Patching a SSH 'Weakness', Ross Cameron, (Thu Sep 11, 6:10 am)