SunSSH and OpenSSL Enhancements in OpenSolaris within 01/2008-06/2009
A presentation written in July 2009, covering all major enhancements we integrated into SunSSH and with OpenSSL within a period of 01/2008-06/2009. The presentation slides are here.
Hello,
I am trying to determine if SunSSH (SSH-2.0-Sun_SSH_1.1.2)on a Solaris 10 box is capable of using the following keyword and argument (this PasswordPrompt keyword comes directly from OpenSSH implementations).
# PasswordPrompt "%U@%H's password: "
Regards,
Scott
Posted by Scott Stark on September 23, 2009 at 12:56 AM CEST #
Scott, I think that's an option in SSH.com (Tectia). OpenSSH does not use it, and neither SunSSH.
Posted by Jan on September 23, 2009 at 10:07 AM CEST #
Ok, I searched the web and read that too.
What I'm interested about is Sun Solaris and a difference in the behavior of SSH between SunSSH and OpenSSH. Specifically once you're challenged with password.
In SunSSH you see the following -
Password:
With OpenSSH installed on Sun Solaris 10, you might see -
User@Host's password:
Notice there is a case difference with "password too.
Thanks,
Scott
Posted by Scott Stark on September 23, 2009 at 10:06 PM CEST #
"Password" prompt on Solaris suggests that the keyboard-interactive auth method is used. With the password auth method, it uses the user@host form:
$ ssh -o PreferredAuthentications=password localhost
janp@localhost's password:
Posted by Jan on September 23, 2009 at 10:20 PM CEST #
And to control the authentication methods that is done by editing the system's SSH2_CONFIG. file and removing keyboard-interactive?
If we dont want to affect a global change, can the keyboard-interactive method be removed by the users SSH2_CONFIG. file?
Sorry but I do not have access to the Sun box. I am T/S from a VMS host using /debug=6
Thanks for your help Jan.
Posted by Scott Stark on September 23, 2009 at 10:53 PM CEST #
Hi Jan,
Are there any plans to implement the following:
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6790594
thanks
Posted by 80.58.205.50 on February 02, 2010 at 06:15 PM CET #
hi, 6790594 doesn't seem to have sufficient priority for now. J.
Posted by Jan on February 02, 2010 at 06:27 PM CET #