5 ms·
> i don't need anything reminding me that i'm in a remote shell session: i know because it lags. It doesn’t if you use a tool like Mosh [1] (I’m not affiliated
by hk__2 2y ago
> i don't need anything reminding me that i'm in a remote shell session: i know because it lags.
It doesn’t if you use a tool like Mosh [1] (I’m not affiliated)
[1]: https://mosh.org/ https://mosh.org/
- yonatan8070 2y agoReplacing SSH with a custom protocol sounds quite scary Is it as secure as regular SSH when configured properly?
- techjamie 2y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10220080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10220080 Here's a conversation on HN about it. Mosh uses an initial SSH connection to establish a session, and I located elsewhere that the communication thereafter is handled via AES-128 encrypted UDP traffic. The server process itself seems to only live the life of the session, and doesn't require escalated permissions. I can't imagine enterprise or government adding it to their stacks, but for connecting to personal stuff doesn't really seem like a big risk.
- matthews2 2y agoYou still authenticate and kick off the Mosh session via SSH, so it shouldn't be any worse than plain SSH. > Mosh doesn't listen on network ports or authenticate users. The mosh client logs in to the server via SSH, and users present the same credentials (e.g., password, public key) as before. Then Mosh runs the mosh-server remotely and connects to it over UDP.
- mdaniel 2y ago> Mosh doesn't listen on network ports ... > ... Then Mosh runs the mosh-server remotely and connects to it over UDP. Are UDP sockets immune from port scanning? Regardless of the answer to that, the sentence should be rewritten because it sounds like nonsense as is