Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Understanding sshd response
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:10:11 +0100 Mick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So there's nothing that I would need to do client wise to make my gentoo box communicate 'better' with the server? This is almost a rhetorical question, because I am not sure I can define 'better'. I just ask to see if there is any setting client-wise that will improve compatibility. It sounds like if your router had 'quirks', then yes your could improve compatibility. your router plays nicely with others already, so there's no need to treat it special. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Understanding sshd response
Mick wrote: So there's nothing that I would need to do client wise to make my gentoo box communicate 'better' with the server? This is almost a rhetorical question, because I am not sure I can define 'better'. I just ask to see if there is any setting client-wise that will improve compatibility. In regards to ssh-ing into Cisco routers, just be happy it actually works. :-) It wasn't that long ago that they barely supported protocol 1 and interoperating with openssh was interesting. kashani -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-user] [OT] Understanding sshd response
Hi All, I am logging on to a branded Cisco router and I get this as a response: === OpenSSH_4.5p1, OpenSSL 0.9.8d 28 Sep 2006 debug1: Reading configuration data /etc/ssh/ssh_config debug1: Connecting to domain_name [XX.XXX.XXX.XX] port 22. debug1: Connection established. debug1: identity file /home/michael/.ssh/id_rsa type -1 debug1: identity file /home/michael/.ssh/id_dsa type 2 debug1: Remote protocol version 2.0, remote software version RomCliSecure_4.12 debug1: no match: RomCliSecure_4.12 debug1: Enabling compatibility mode for protocol 2.0 debug1: Local version string SSH-2.0-OpenSSH_4.5 debug1: SSH2_MSG_KEXINIT sent debug1: SSH2_MSG_KEXINIT received debug1: kex: server-client 3des-cbc hmac-sha1 none debug1: kex: client-server 3des-cbc hmac-sha1 none debug1: sending SSH2_MSG_KEXDH_INIT debug1: expecting SSH2_MSG_KEXDH_REPLY debug1: checking without port identifier debug1: Host 'domain_name' is known and matches the DSA host key. debug1: Found key in /home/michael/.ssh/known_hosts:13 debug1: found matching key w/out port debug1: ssh_dss_verify: signature correct debug1: SSH2_MSG_NEWKEYS sent debug1: expecting SSH2_MSG_NEWKEYS debug1: SSH2_MSG_NEWKEYS received debug1: SSH2_MSG_SERVICE_REQUEST sent debug1: SSH2_MSG_SERVICE_ACCEPT received debug1: Authentications that can continue: password debug1: Next authentication method: password === What does this mean? Remote protocol version 2.0, remote software version RomCliSecure_4.12 debug1: no match: RomCliSecure_4.12 I am running net-misc/openssh-4.5_p1-r1. -- Regards, Mick pgpZyI29MWAa8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Understanding sshd response
Hi, On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:08:03 +0100 Mick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What does this mean? Remote protocol version 2.0, remote software version RomCliSecure_4.12 debug1: no match: RomCliSecure_4.12 That's in compat.c, l.58ff. (4.6pl1). There's a table with server/application specific quirks. As it's written in the debug output: There's no match for your SSH server's ID string. As always, debug messages tend to be only understandable if you know a bit of the application's code. -hwh -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Understanding sshd response
On Friday 20 April 2007 12:30, Hans-Werner Hilse wrote: Hi, On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:08:03 +0100 Mick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What does this mean? Remote protocol version 2.0, remote software version RomCliSecure_4.12 debug1: no match: RomCliSecure_4.12 That's in compat.c, l.58ff. (4.6pl1). There's a table with server/application specific quirks. As it's written in the debug output: There's no match for your SSH server's ID string. As always, debug messages tend to be only understandable if you know a bit of the application's code. Thanks HWH, So there's nothing that I would need to do client wise to make my gentoo box communicate 'better' with the server? This is almost a rhetorical question, because I am not sure I can define 'better'. I just ask to see if there is any setting client-wise that will improve compatibility. -- Regards, Mick pgpTQn5VY4g1e.pgp Description: PGP signature
