"Michael H. Warfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 09:30:03PM -0600, Chris D.Halverson wrote:
> > Ranbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > In my understanding, SSH is a good replacement for telnet and ftp
> > > tools while OpenSSH is a replacement for remote tools such as rlogin.
>
> > No. OpenSSH is an implementation of the ssh protocol. Commercial ssh
> > (via ssh.com) is another. It just so happens to be the "reference"
> > protocol, although the protocol is now an RFC. OpenSSH has the same
> > functionality as traditional "ssh", at least for the most part.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Known differences??? (Other than bugs, which seem to be pretty
> much orthogonal between the two.)
Basically just the alogrithms that are able to be used. This is, like
I mentioned earlier, not such a big deal anymore though. At one point
(ie. before September 2000), if you wanted to use RSA, you had to (if
you wanted to be legal) by a license from RSA. The commercial version
of ssh presumably already had done that. We are in the process of
upgrading to OpenSSH and still have some "regular" ssh1 machines
around and they interoperate just fine.
That and if you're an Open Source fan you would prefer OpenSSH as the
original ssh has had successively stricter licensing.
cdh
--
Chris D. Halverson Complete Internet Solutions
PGP mail accepted, see web page for key http://www.CompleteIS.com/~cdh/
