4 ms·

Maybe OT, but are the OpenSSL project and OpenBSD project related in any way? For some reason I was thinking it was like the OpenSSH project.

protomyth 13y ago
They are not related except in the fact that OpenSSH uses OpenSSL code.
anaphor 13y ago
No, they're not. OpenSSL just shares the same naming convention with OpenBSD and OpenSSH (which IS developed by the same people that do OpenBSD).
rubiquity 13y ago
No, they aren't related at all. OpenSSH is everyone's poster child for a good, open implementation of a security protocol.
- SixSigma 13y ago
  For some values of "everyone" Rob Pike Responds - Slashdot 18 Oct 2004 ... ... but when ssh is the foundation of your security architecture, you know things aren't working as they should http://slashdot.org/story/50858 http://slashdot.org/story/50858
  - scott_karana 13y ago
    I don't think he was impugning SSH's security record at all: just the perceived abuse of the protocol. The entire quote, in context: 10) Biggest problem with Unix - by akaina Recently on the Google Labs Aptitude Test there was a question: "What's broken with Unix? How would you fix it?" What would you have put? Pike: Ken Thompson and I started Plan 9 as an answer to that question. The major things we saw wrong with Unix when we started talking about what would become Plan 9, back around 1985, all stemmed from the appearance of a network. As a stand-alone system, Unix was pretty good. But when you networked Unix machines together, you got a network of stand-alone systems instead of a seamless, integrated networked system. Instead of one big file system, one user community, one secure setup uniting your network of machines, you had a hodgepodge of workarounds to Unix's fundamental design decision that each machine is self-sufficient. Nothing's really changed today. The workarounds have become smoother and some of the things we can do with networks of Unix machines are pretty impressive, but when ssh is the foundation of your security architecture, you know things aren't working as they should.
    - dreamdu5t 13y ago
      How does Plan 9 address this, exactly? It doesn't seem much different than Unix's networking.
      - bigbugbag 13y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9P also http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/auth.html http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/auth.html
    - SixSigma 13y ago
      He just didn't say so in that interview, however : From: 9fans@cse.psu.edu (rob pike) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 09:37:12 -0500 Subject: [9fans] Re: The problem with SSH2 Message-ID: <20010101143731.DB61F199E7@mail.cse.psu.edu> My disagreement with SSH is more specific. It is a securitymonger's plaything, so has been stuffed with every authentication and encryption technology known, yet those that are configured when it is installed is a random variable. Therefore both sides must negotiate like crazy to figure how to talk, and one often finds that there is no shared language. This is idiocy. The complexity is silly, but much worse is that there isn't at least one guaranteed protocol for authentication and encryption that both ends always have and can use as a fallback. I would argue that that would always be sufficient, but I know I'm in the minority there. I do argue that it's demonstrably necessary. Algorithms everywhere, and not a byte to send. By making the thing too complicated, they defeat the very purpose of security. Difficult administration results in incorrect or inadequate installation. There are cases when I can't use ssh, a direct consequence. -rob Russ Cox chimes in we're stuck with ssh, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking it's a good protocol. (i'm talking about ssh1; ssh2 looks worse.) russ
      - scott_karana 13y ago
        Thanks, that makes more sense.
  - lotsofmangos 13y ago
    Thanks for posting that, is a damn good read.
  - Jtsummers 13y ago
    That's not a criticism of OpenSSH itself, but of the way Unix systems hadn't progressed from being a set of standalone systems to one networked system. The mention of SSH is not as a criticism of the protocol or OpenSSH. It's a criticism of the Unix world's lack of progress in moving towards what Pike sees as a better way of building large systems.
  - laumars 13y ago
    That's not related to the previous post. He's talking about code, Rob Pike is talking about protocol.
mhurron 13y ago
No they are not.

protomyth 13y ago

They are not related except in the fact that OpenSSH uses OpenSSL code.

anaphor 13y ago

No, they're not. OpenSSL just shares the same naming convention with OpenBSD and OpenSSH (which IS developed by the same people that do OpenBSD).

rubiquity 13y ago

No, they aren't related at all. OpenSSH is everyone's poster child for a good, open implementation of a security protocol.

SixSigma 13y ago
For some values of "everyone" Rob Pike Responds - Slashdot 18 Oct 2004 ... ... but when ssh is the foundation of your security architecture, you know things aren't working as they should http://slashdot.org/story/50858 http://slashdot.org/story/50858
- scott_karana 13y ago
  I don't think he was impugning SSH's security record at all: just the perceived abuse of the protocol. The entire quote, in context: 10) Biggest problem with Unix - by akaina Recently on the Google Labs Aptitude Test there was a question: "What's broken with Unix? How would you fix it?" What would you have put? Pike: Ken Thompson and I started Plan 9 as an answer to that question. The major things we saw wrong with Unix when we started talking about what would become Plan 9, back around 1985, all stemmed from the appearance of a network. As a stand-alone system, Unix was pretty good. But when you networked Unix machines together, you got a network of stand-alone systems instead of a seamless, integrated networked system. Instead of one big file system, one user community, one secure setup uniting your network of machines, you had a hodgepodge of workarounds to Unix's fundamental design decision that each machine is self-sufficient. Nothing's really changed today. The workarounds have become smoother and some of the things we can do with networks of Unix machines are pretty impressive, but when ssh is the foundation of your security architecture, you know things aren't working as they should.
  - dreamdu5t 13y ago
    How does Plan 9 address this, exactly? It doesn't seem much different than Unix's networking.
    - bigbugbag 13y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9P also http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/auth.html http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/auth.html
  - SixSigma 13y ago
    He just didn't say so in that interview, however : From: 9fans@cse.psu.edu (rob pike) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 09:37:12 -0500 Subject: [9fans] Re: The problem with SSH2 Message-ID: <20010101143731.DB61F199E7@mail.cse.psu.edu> My disagreement with SSH is more specific. It is a securitymonger's plaything, so has been stuffed with every authentication and encryption technology known, yet those that are configured when it is installed is a random variable. Therefore both sides must negotiate like crazy to figure how to talk, and one often finds that there is no shared language. This is idiocy. The complexity is silly, but much worse is that there isn't at least one guaranteed protocol for authentication and encryption that both ends always have and can use as a fallback. I would argue that that would always be sufficient, but I know I'm in the minority there. I do argue that it's demonstrably necessary. Algorithms everywhere, and not a byte to send. By making the thing too complicated, they defeat the very purpose of security. Difficult administration results in incorrect or inadequate installation. There are cases when I can't use ssh, a direct consequence. -rob Russ Cox chimes in we're stuck with ssh, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking it's a good protocol. (i'm talking about ssh1; ssh2 looks worse.) russ
    - scott_karana 13y ago
      Thanks, that makes more sense.
- lotsofmangos 13y ago
  Thanks for posting that, is a damn good read.
- Jtsummers 13y ago
  That's not a criticism of OpenSSH itself, but of the way Unix systems hadn't progressed from being a set of standalone systems to one networked system. The mention of SSH is not as a criticism of the protocol or OpenSSH. It's a criticism of the Unix world's lack of progress in moving towards what Pike sees as a better way of building large systems.
- laumars 13y ago
  That's not related to the previous post. He's talking about code, Rob Pike is talking about protocol.

mhurron 13y ago

No they are not.