https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2560
Damien Miller <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #1 from Damien Miller <[email protected]> --- It's saying that (In reply to Jakub Jelen from comment #0) > Manual page for sshd states: > > Alternately, hostnames may be stored in a hashed form which hides > host names and addresses should the file's contents be disclosed. > > The ending part "should the file's contents be disclosed" does not > fit into the sentence and I am not sure what is meant by that. > > It is there for a long time, since > e1776155d19db4f3ab2ff42323d6499f0712cfa4 It's saying that if someone gets a hold ("be disclosed") of your known_hosts file then the host name/address will still have some privacy. AFAIK it's grammatical, but I'm open to a better wording. > Also the format, described as: > > Each line in these files contains the following fields: markers > (optional), > hostnames, bits, exponent, modulus, comment. > > is outdated (describes RSA1 keys). In current situation the part > "bits, exponent, modulus" is substituted by "keytype, base64-encoded > key" as described for example in authorized_keys section. How about: -hostnames, bits, exponent, modulus, comment. +hostnames, key type, key content (base-64 encoded), comment. We're taking the habit of referring to SSH protocol 2 features only in anticipation of a future removal of SSH 1 code in a few years. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching the assignee of the bug. You are watching someone on the CC list of the bug. _______________________________________________ openssh-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-bugs
