Re: Using unprotected Wifi
- From: Maxwell Lol <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 07:24:14 -0400
Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
terryc <newsninespam-spam@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Mon, 31 May 2010 12:53:06 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
In article <slrni07k41.ecr.news@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Jon Solberg <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
historically there has existed buggy implementations of SSH susceptible
of password sniffing and some of these are still around. Although
running against a reasonably modern client-servers pair (SSH v.2)
should be safe, keys are still a good thing.
To expand on Jon's statement, note that to find a pre-v.2
implementation, you need to set the controls on the way-back machine to
something like 15 years ago.
Blink, less that five years ago. One of the bigger linux distros and all
derivatives had it.
Just in case somebody doesn't know who you're referring to: debian.
But that was a case of weak ssh keys, right? It was not vulnerable to
sniffing. Just brute force password cracking, except that the brute
wasn't so brute - but a marshmellow.
i.e. the PROTOCOL wasn't flawed. Just the random number generator used
to generate unique keys.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Using unprotected Wifi
- From: Joe Pfeiffer
- Re: Using unprotected Wifi
- References:
- Re: Using unprotected Wifi
- From: terryc
- Re: Using unprotected Wifi
- From: Joe Pfeiffer
- Re: Using unprotected Wifi
- Prev by Date: Re: dnsmasq + vlans = troubles
- Next by Date: Re: dnsmasq + vlans = troubles
- Previous by thread: Re: Using unprotected Wifi
- Next by thread: Re: Using unprotected Wifi
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|