nanog mailing list archives
Re: [rootshell] Security Bulletin #25
From: Joe Shaw <jshaw () insync net>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:51:27 -0600 (CST)
Well, seeing how 2.0 is actually a commercial product and supposedly re-written, I can see why they'd want to sell it. If you want to run ssh and don't want to pay for it, you're stuck with the 1.x version. Those that can pay do, and those that don't whine for some reason. It's not like you couldn't take the source to 1.2.26 and alter it now, is it? Regards, Joseph Shaw - jshaw () insync net NetAdmin/Security - Insync Internet Services Free UNIX advocate - "I hack, therefore I am." On Sun, 1 Nov 1998, C. Harald Koch wrote:
Interesting. SSH 2.0 has a more restrictive software license than 1.2.26. The paranoid among us would wonder whether this was a deliberate attempt to convince people to upgrade to 2.0, incidentally forcing many of them to pay for the new license.
Current thread:
- [rootshell] Security Bulletin #25 Kit Knox (Nov 01)
- Re: [rootshell] Security Bulletin #25 C. Harald Koch (Nov 02)
- Re: [rootshell] Security Bulletin #25 Joe Shaw (Nov 02)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: [rootshell] Security Bulletin #25 Richard Steenbergen (Nov 02)
- Re: [rootshell] Security Bulletin #25 Roeland M.J. Meyer (Nov 02)
- Re: [rootshell] Security Bulletin #25 Joe Loiacono (Nov 03)
- Re: [rootshell] Security Bulletin #25 Dan Watts (Nov 03)
- Re: [rootshell] Security Bulletin #25 Roeland M.J. Meyer (Nov 03)
- Re: [rootshell] Security Bulletin #25 Roeland M.J. Meyer (Nov 02)
- Re: [rootshell] Security Bulletin #25 C. Harald Koch (Nov 02)