We've now switched to putty and we're now recommending our clients switch to putty.
I know there was some talk here right after the latest update .pkg for ssh came out about changing this and that. What I don't know is: because the default setting of (and I'll get it right this time) sshd_config was protocol 1,2 were we still vulnerable to version 1 attacks? It's fixed on my system now and anybody else I know's systems, I just happened to notice a rash of version bots checking for 1 so got to looking and saw that I was not quite as tight as I could be so fixed it. I don't like to bash at Cobalt because I think guys like Taco do their best to keep us up to date, but things like this make me wonder if they could/should be checking their update scripts a little closer.. ok.. the latest OS patch could have been a "little" cleaner too <g>
People do things like that <frown>. I abandoned a perfectly good (commercial) telnet client a few years ago because they wouldn't add SSH support, and now I must abandon TTSSH because they won't update to SSH2 <frown>.
I find it hard to "bash" someone who writes something like this for free and gives it away, but if it becomes outdated, they should just abandon it (take down the links) rather than continue to offer it without explaining the security issues with using it, or the version of ssh that it supports. If security is the goal, we all need to stick together and play the game hard.
I've got winSCP2 from "http://winscp.vse.cz";; it seems to work fine on a box that'll only work with ssh2.
I read somewhere that ssh clients will not differentiate between asskey and binary, in fact, only sending files in binary. Is this true? Any way to "trick" it by sending them as zipped or something? I like the idea of a secure "ftplike" client to use, I don't like the idea of having to give shell access to users to be able to utilize these sshftp things. I did install the SafeTP client, but found that it gave me intense problems with my firewall, (home firewall) I was personally able to get it to work, but for any site users, it would have been over some of their heads so I did not impliment it ..*yet*..
Seems a good choice, other than that it has to be left open all the time. I normally keep ftp off, using it only when necessary, and fortunately for me, I don't have too many non-managed sites who need it.
Found out one thing about MSFP, they don't need FTP on to upload. <scary> nor do they need sendmail to send mail from their sites.. <also scary> convenient but ... scary!
Again my apologies for clouding the v-1 v-2 issue with my earlier typos... Have been sick for a few days and should remember not to type when feeling poorly!
WS _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.