4 ms·
You'd need to keep an older client to keep around for old devices. Sort of like that VM with WinXP and IE6, the one that's only kept because it has a semi-worki
by Piskvorrr 3y ago
You'd need to keep an older client to keep around for old devices. Sort of like that VM with WinXP and IE6, the one that's only kept because it has a semi-working ActiveX that some ancient device only interfaces with... shudder
- duozerk 3y agoThis is already the case for very old target devices, that don't support the ssh v2 protocol at all; hence the existence of the ssh1 client (https://packages.debian.org/bookworm/openssh-client-ssh1 https://packages.debian.org/bookworm/openssh-client-ssh1).
- szundi 3y agoOlder clients may be a target for attack then.
- pavon 3y agoYes, but I'd be much more concerned about the SSH server.
- px43 3y agoI dunno, exploiting a vulnerability that lets you steal SSH keys from a sysadmin seems a bit more useful than hitting a single server.
- NegativeK 3y agoAs usual, it seems like it's a good idea for the open source project (ssh in this case) to drop old tech and move on while those dependent on it should maintain it, for whatever that means.
- Piskvorrr 3y agoPossibly. You don't want to use the older client for anything except connecting to the older system. Keep it somewhere offline (encrypted, whatever: distinctly non-executable), too. (Not that it would solve the issue altogether, see Stuxnet for a sufficiently motivated attacker and airgapped systems, but it's a viable mitigation.)