Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #92934 > unrolled thread

Another ssh quirk...

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  Another ssh quirk... gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-05 12:35 +0000
    Re: Another ssh quirk... Philippe <p.naudin+nntp@free.fr> - 2026-10-05 15:26 +0200
      Re: Another ssh quirk... gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-05 13:41 +0000
        Re: Another ssh quirk... John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-05 19:09 +0200
    Re: Another ssh quirk... "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-05 15:40 +0200
      Re: Another ssh quirk... gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-05 13:45 +0000
    Re: Another ssh quirk... Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-05 20:31 +0100
      Re: Another ssh quirk... "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-05 21:46 +0200
    Re: Another ssh quirk... not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-10-06 09:21 +1000
      Re: Another ssh quirk... "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-06 01:55 +0200
        Re: Another ssh quirk... Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2026-10-06 14:07 +1000
          Re: Another ssh quirk... "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-06 11:17 +0200
            Re: Another ssh quirk... not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-10-07 07:55 +1000
              Re: Another ssh quirk... c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-07 00:41 -0400
                Re: Another ssh quirk... Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-07 08:47 +0100
                  Re: Another ssh quirk... "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-07 12:02 +0200
                    Re: Another ssh quirk... c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-07 21:32 -0400
                      Re: Another ssh quirk... Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-08 20:08 +0000
                  Re: Another ssh quirk... Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-10-07 15:33 +0000
        Re: Another ssh quirk... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-06 08:51 +0100
      Re: Another ssh quirk... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-06 08:51 +0100
        Re: Another ssh quirk... "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-06 11:20 +0200
        Re: Another ssh quirk... not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-10-07 08:09 +1000
    Re: Another ssh quirk... Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-10-06 09:27 +0100
      Re: Another ssh quirk... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-06 11:08 +0100
        Re: Another ssh quirk... c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-06 23:53 -0400
      Re: Another ssh quirk... gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-06 11:09 +0000
    Re: Another ssh quirk... Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-07 11:08 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#92934 — Another ssh quirk...

Yes, I enjoy writing about these weird quirks that I find in the ssh tools
(including rsync).  I find it amusing that ssh (and friends) - a tool we
all use daily and rely on heavily - is still stuck, design-wise, in the
1980s.

So, I recently started running a new/different version of RaspiOS on one of
my Pis.  Same hostname, same hardware, same Mac Address, thus same IP from
the router, but new OS build.

So, I find that when I ssh into this machine (call it "zebra" for the sake
of discussion) from each of the other machines on the LAN, the first time,
it generates a screenful of errors/warnings about "man in the middle"
attacks and so on.  Yes, I know why it does this and, no, I don't want to
disable "strict host checking"; I just think there should be a simpler way
to handle this than the method described below.

What I do (note that the : at the end of some ssh lines is not a typo):

1) I do: ssh zebra :
2) It generates a whole bunch of errors/warnings, that includes an
"offending" line number in the known_hosts file.  I note that number - call
it "N".
3) Then I do: sed -i Nd ~/.ssh/known_hosts
4) I do: ssh zebra :
5) It generates another bunch of errors/warnings, that includes another
(different) "offending" line number in the known_hosts file.  I note that
number - call it "N1".
6) Then I do: sed -i N1d ~/.ssh/known_hosts
7) I do: ssh zebra

And it lets me right in (with a message that it is adding the new host info
to the known_hosts file).  And after that, everything is fine (for that
particular machine connecting to zebra).

-- 
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4-ish
lines long.  As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs.  In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
	http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/Windows

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#92939

On Monday 05 oct. 2026 12:35:28, Kenny McCormack wrote:

> Yes, I enjoy writing about these weird quirks that I find in the ssh tools
> (including rsync).  I find it amusing that ssh (and friends) - a tool we
> all use daily and rely on heavily - is still stuck, design-wise, in the
> 1980s.
> 
> So, I recently started running a new/different version of RaspiOS on one of
> my Pis.  Same hostname, same hardware, same Mac Address, thus same IP from
> the router, but new OS build.
> 
> So, I find that when I ssh into this machine (call it "zebra" for the sake
> of discussion) from each of the other machines on the LAN, the first time,
> it generates a screenful of errors/warnings about "man in the middle"
> attacks and so on.  Yes, I know why it does this and, no, I don't want to
> disable "strict host checking"; I just think there should be a simpler way
> to handle this than the method described below.
> 
> What I do (note that the : at the end of some ssh lines is not a typo):
> 
> 1) I do: ssh zebra :
> 2) It generates a whole bunch of errors/warnings, that includes an
> "offending" line number in the known_hosts file.  I note that number - call
> it "N".
> 3) Then I do: sed -i Nd ~/.ssh/known_hosts
> 4) I do: ssh zebra :
> 5) It generates another bunch of errors/warnings, that includes another
> (different) "offending" line number in the known_hosts file.  I note that
> number - call it "N1".
> 6) Then I do: sed -i N1d ~/.ssh/known_hosts
> 7) I do: ssh zebra
> 
> And it lets me right in (with a message that it is adding the new host info
> to the known_hosts file).  And after that, everything is fine (for that
> particular machine connecting to zebra).
> 

Perfectly normal. See the error messages for more info.

To get rid of these errors, you can run (on each client, as the user 
allowed to connect to zebra) :
ssh-keygen -R zebra

You may have to do this more that once, for example :
ssh-keygen -R zebra.your.local.domain
ssh-keygen -R IP.of.zebra

-- 
Philippe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#92941

In article <20261005152619.4ee1fb8d@peinard.chezmoi>,
Philippe  <p.naudin+nntp@free.fr> wrote:
...
>> And it lets me right in (with a message that it is adding the new host info
>> to the known_hosts file).  And after that, everything is fine (for that
>> particular machine connecting to zebra).
>> 
>
>Perfectly normal. See the error messages for more info.

Yeah, I know it is "perfectly normal".  It's just friggin' annoyin'!

>To get rid of these errors, you can run (on each client, as the user 
>allowed to connect to zebra) :
>ssh-keygen -R zebra
>
>You may have to do this more that once, for example :
>ssh-keygen -R zebra.your.local.domain
>ssh-keygen -R IP.of.zebra

Six of one, half dozen of the other.  The "sed" commands are actually
both easier to diagnose/construct and easier to type.

Just the way things are...

-- 
I shot a man on Fifth Aveneue, just to see him die.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#92950

On 05/10/2026 15:41, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <20261005152619.4ee1fb8d@peinard.chezmoi>,
> Philippe  <p.naudin+nntp@free.fr> wrote:
> ...
>>> And it lets me right in (with a message that it is adding the new host info
>>> to the known_hosts file).  And after that, everything is fine (for that
>>> particular machine connecting to zebra).
>>>
>>
>> Perfectly normal. See the error messages for more info.
> 
> Yeah, I know it is "perfectly normal".  It's just friggin' annoyin'!
> 
>> To get rid of these errors, you can run (on each client, as the user
>> allowed to connect to zebra) :
>> ssh-keygen -R zebra
>>
>> You may have to do this more that once, for example :
>> ssh-keygen -R zebra.your.local.domain
>> ssh-keygen -R IP.of.zebra
> 
> Six of one, half dozen of the other.  The "sed" commands are actually
> both easier to diagnose/construct and easier to type.
> 
> Just the way things are...

rm ~/.ssh/known_hosts ;-)

-- 
Static tumblelog generator: https://github.com/john-bokma/tumblelog/
Available as Python or Perl. Example tumblelog: https://plurrrr.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#92940

On 2026-10-05 14:35, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> Yes, I enjoy writing about these weird quirks that I find in the ssh tools
> (including rsync).  I find it amusing that ssh (and friends) - a tool we
> all use daily and rely on heavily - is still stuck, design-wise, in the
> 1980s.
> 
> So, I recently started running a new/different version of RaspiOS on one of
> my Pis.  Same hostname, same hardware, same Mac Address, thus same IP from
> the router, but new OS build.

But different certificate. You should have copied the certificate.

> 
> So, I find that when I ssh into this machine (call it "zebra" for the sake
> of discussion) from each of the other machines on the LAN, the first time,
> it generates a screenful of errors/warnings about "man in the middle"
> attacks and so on.  Yes, I know why it does this and, no, I don't want to
> disable "strict host checking"; I just think there should be a simpler way
> to handle this than the method described below.
> 

There is. It is a single line to paste and execute.
I don't remember it, the error message prints it.


-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#92942

In article <nihnlnFfekcU5@mid.individual.net>,
Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
...
>There is. It is a single line to paste and execute.

Actually, my experience is that even if you do cut-and-paste the command
that the error message tells you to do, you still have to do it twice in
order to clear everything.  Essentially, it really is just the same as
doing it with "sed".

>I don't remember it, the error message prints it.

As I posted in another response:

Six of one, half dozen of the other.  The "sed" commands are actually
both easier to diagnose/construct and easier to type.

-- 
2023: The hottest summer of your life (so far...)

2023: (Also) The coolest summer of the rest of your life.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#92966

gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
> Yes, I enjoy writing about these weird quirks that I find in the ssh tools
> (including rsync).  I find it amusing that ssh (and friends) - a tool we
> all use daily and rely on heavily - is still stuck, design-wise, in the
> 1980s.
>
> So, I recently started running a new/different version of RaspiOS on
> one of my Pis.  Same hostname, same hardware, same Mac Address, thus
> same IP from the router, but new OS build.
>
> So, I find that when I ssh into this machine (call it "zebra" for the
> sake of discussion) from each of the other machines on the LAN, the
> first time, it generates a screenful of errors/warnings about "man in
> the middle" attacks and so on.  Yes, I know why it does this and, no,
> I don't want to disable "strict host checking"; I just think there
> should be a simpler way to handle this than the method described
> below.

Someone already mentioned ssh-keygen -r; other options:

- copy the old keys to the new install (if they’re not obsolete; if you
  try this with DSA-1024 or something it isn’t likely to work).
- upgrade in place rather than reinstalling.

-- 
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#92970

On 2026-10-05 21:31, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
>> Yes, I enjoy writing about these weird quirks that I find in the ssh tools
>> (including rsync).  I find it amusing that ssh (and friends) - a tool we
>> all use daily and rely on heavily - is still stuck, design-wise, in the
>> 1980s.
>>
>> So, I recently started running a new/different version of RaspiOS on
>> one of my Pis.  Same hostname, same hardware, same Mac Address, thus
>> same IP from the router, but new OS build.
>>
>> So, I find that when I ssh into this machine (call it "zebra" for the
>> sake of discussion) from each of the other machines on the LAN, the
>> first time, it generates a screenful of errors/warnings about "man in
>> the middle" attacks and so on.  Yes, I know why it does this and, no,
>> I don't want to disable "strict host checking"; I just think there
>> should be a simpler way to handle this than the method described
>> below.
> 
> Someone already mentioned ssh-keygen -r; other options:
> 
> - copy the old keys to the new install (if they’re not obsolete; if you
>    try this with DSA-1024 or something it isn’t likely to work).
> - upgrade in place rather than reinstalling.

The old YaST installer in openSUSE could install the distro on top of an 
existing install, and it automatically migrated some things, like user's 
passwords and ssh keys. It asked first.

-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#92979

Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
> Yes, I enjoy writing about these weird quirks that I find in the ssh tools
> (including rsync).  I find it amusing that ssh (and friends) - a tool we
> all use daily and rely on heavily - is still stuck, design-wise, in the
> 1980s.

I just double-down on the 1980s mindset and use Telnet instead of
SSH for talking to things like Raspberry Pis which are on my own
LAN where nobody should be able to listen/connect anyway, unless
they can just walk over and steal its SD card anyway. Makes
everything much simpler, once you've installed the Telnet server.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#92981

On 2026-10-06 01:21, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>> Yes, I enjoy writing about these weird quirks that I find in the ssh tools
>> (including rsync).  I find it amusing that ssh (and friends) - a tool we
>> all use daily and rely on heavily - is still stuck, design-wise, in the
>> 1980s.
> 
> I just double-down on the 1980s mindset and use Telnet instead of
> SSH for talking to things like Raspberry Pis which are on my own
> LAN where nobody should be able to listen/connect anyway, unless
> they can just walk over and steal its SD card anyway. Makes
> everything much simpler, once you've installed the Telnet server.
> 

telnet does not send files, AFAIK.

-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#92993

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2026-10-06 01:21, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>>> Yes, I enjoy writing about these weird quirks that I find in the ssh tools
>>> (including rsync).  I find it amusing that ssh (and friends) - a tool we
>>> all use daily and rely on heavily - is still stuck, design-wise, in the
>>> 1980s.
>> 
>> I just double-down on the 1980s mindset and use Telnet instead of
>> SSH for talking to things like Raspberry Pis which are on my own
>> LAN where nobody should be able to listen/connect anyway, unless
>> they can just walk over and steal its SD card anyway. Makes
>> everything much simpler, once you've installed the Telnet server.
> 
> telnet does not send files, AFAIK.

No more than SSH does, on its own. But if you want an equivalent
set of "and friends" that don't over-complicate things with
unnecessary security, look through the programs in GNU Inetutils.
Plus Rsync isn't just an "ssh tool" at all, as the OP suggested - I
frequently use the Rsync protocol which is unencrypted, and if you
use Rsh instead of Telnet that can work with Rsync unencrypted too.
I also use FTP a lot.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#93009

On 2026-10-06 06:07, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2026-10-06 01:21, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>>>> Yes, I enjoy writing about these weird quirks that I find in the ssh tools
>>>> (including rsync).  I find it amusing that ssh (and friends) - a tool we
>>>> all use daily and rely on heavily - is still stuck, design-wise, in the
>>>> 1980s.
>>>
>>> I just double-down on the 1980s mindset and use Telnet instead of
>>> SSH for talking to things like Raspberry Pis which are on my own
>>> LAN where nobody should be able to listen/connect anyway, unless
>>> they can just walk over and steal its SD card anyway. Makes
>>> everything much simpler, once you've installed the Telnet server.
>>
>> telnet does not send files, AFAIK.
> 
> No more than SSH does, on its own. 

cer@Laicolasse:~> wrpm ssh
openssh-clients-10.0p2-160000.7.1.x86_64
cer@Laicolasse:~> wrpm scp
openssh-clients-10.0p2-160000.7.1.x86_64
cer@Laicolasse:~>

scp is part of the ssh package.

> But if you want an equivalent
> set of "and friends" that don't over-complicate things with
> unnecessary security, look through the programs in GNU Inetutils.
> Plus Rsync isn't just an "ssh tool" at all, as the OP suggested - I
> frequently use the Rsync protocol which is unencrypted, and if you
> use Rsh instead of Telnet that can work with Rsync unencrypted too.
> I also use FTP a lot.
> 


-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#93066

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2026-10-06 06:07, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2026-10-06 01:21, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>> Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>>>>> Yes, I enjoy writing about these weird quirks that I find in the ssh tools
>>>>> (including rsync).  I find it amusing that ssh (and friends) - a tool we
>>>>> all use daily and rely on heavily - is still stuck, design-wise, in the
>>>>> 1980s.
>>>>
>>>> I just double-down on the 1980s mindset and use Telnet instead of
>>>> SSH for talking to things like Raspberry Pis which are on my own
>>>> LAN where nobody should be able to listen/connect anyway, unless
>>>> they can just walk over and steal its SD card anyway. Makes
>>>> everything much simpler, once you've installed the Telnet server.
>>>
>>> telnet does not send files, AFAIK.
>> 
>> No more than SSH does, on its own. 
> 
> cer@Laicolasse:~> wrpm ssh
> openssh-clients-10.0p2-160000.7.1.x86_64
> cer@Laicolasse:~> wrpm scp
> openssh-clients-10.0p2-160000.7.1.x86_64
> cer@Laicolasse:~>
> 
> scp is part of the ssh package.

It's true that the OpenSSH project makes both, but it's not the
same program and actually uses the SFTP protocol these days. The
Telnet and FTP clients I use are both part of the GNU Inetutils
project and sometimes packaged together, so by your logic Telnet
is in the same position: it doesn't send files but it's sometimes
supplied alongside software that does.

Anyway the only way the OP suggested they wanted to move files
was with Rsync, which technically doesn't need anything else to
do that anyway because the client can act as an Rsync protocol
server itself. If they want other ways as well, then no a Telnet
itself isn't one of them, but plenty of options exist.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#93073

On 10/6/26 17:55, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2026-10-06 06:07, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2026-10-06 01:21, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>> Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, I enjoy writing about these weird quirks that I find in the ssh tools
>>>>>> (including rsync).  I find it amusing that ssh (and friends) - a tool we
>>>>>> all use daily and rely on heavily - is still stuck, design-wise, in the
>>>>>> 1980s.
>>>>>
>>>>> I just double-down on the 1980s mindset and use Telnet instead of
>>>>> SSH for talking to things like Raspberry Pis which are on my own
>>>>> LAN where nobody should be able to listen/connect anyway, unless
>>>>> they can just walk over and steal its SD card anyway. Makes
>>>>> everything much simpler, once you've installed the Telnet server.
>>>>
>>>> telnet does not send files, AFAIK.
>>>
>>> No more than SSH does, on its own.
>>
>> cer@Laicolasse:~> wrpm ssh
>> openssh-clients-10.0p2-160000.7.1.x86_64
>> cer@Laicolasse:~> wrpm scp
>> openssh-clients-10.0p2-160000.7.1.x86_64
>> cer@Laicolasse:~>
>>
>> scp is part of the ssh package.
> 
> It's true that the OpenSSH project makes both, but it's not the
> same program and actually uses the SFTP protocol these days. The
> Telnet and FTP clients I use are both part of the GNU Inetutils
> project and sometimes packaged together, so by your logic Telnet
> is in the same position: it doesn't send files but it's sometimes
> supplied alongside software that does.
> 
> Anyway the only way the OP suggested they wanted to move files
> was with Rsync, which technically doesn't need anything else to
> do that anyway because the client can act as an Rsync protocol
> server itself. If they want other ways as well, then no a Telnet
> itself isn't one of them, but plenty of options exist.

   'sftp' works fine BUT used AS ftp it's more
   complicated to work with. 'scp' kinda hides
   most of the complexity - security without
   all the BS.

   BUT, remember, you may have to open the correct
   ports for both SSH and SFTP .....

   Telnet ... really NOT used much anymore for
   anything. The only thing I sometimes use it
   for is testing client/server apps - easy
   to send ascii-like shit to some random port.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#93091

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
>   'sftp' works fine BUT used AS ftp it's more
>   complicated to work with. 'scp' kinda hides
>   most of the complexity - security without
>   all the BS.
>
>   BUT, remember, you may have to open the correct
>   ports for both SSH and SFTP .....

Are you somehow under the impression that you need to open more than one
port for SSH and SFTP?

-- 
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#93105

On 2026-10-07 09:47, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
>>    'sftp' works fine BUT used AS ftp it's more
>>    complicated to work with. 'scp' kinda hides
>>    most of the complexity - security without
>>    all the BS.
>>
>>    BUT, remember, you may have to open the correct
>>    ports for both SSH and SFTP .....
> 
> Are you somehow under the impression that you need to open more than one
> port for SSH and SFTP?
> 

Maybe thinking of ftps.

-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#93154

On 10/7/26 06:02, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2026-10-07 09:47, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
>>>    'sftp' works fine BUT used AS ftp it's more
>>>    complicated to work with. 'scp' kinda hides
>>>    most of the complexity - security without
>>>    all the BS.
>>>
>>>    BUT, remember, you may have to open the correct
>>>    ports for both SSH and SFTP .....
>>
>> Are you somehow under the impression that you need to open more than one
>> port for SSH and SFTP?
>>
> 
> Maybe thinking of ftps.

   Correct, I was, maybe in error in
   this case. Not entirely sure how
   ftps is made 'secure'. Quick look
   at the docs say via SSL/TLS, but
   don't immediately see if 20 and
   21 and 989 and 990 all have to be
   opened. Haven't fooled with any
   kind of FTP for a long time.

   Once started writing a file/op access
   program in 'C'. Somewhere into it I
   realized I was kind of re-creating FTP :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#93195

On 2026-10-08, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

>    Once started writing a file/op access
>    program in 'C'. Somewhere into it I
>    realized I was kind of re-creating FTP :-)

Necessity is the mother of the re-invented wheel.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  In this world there are
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  two kinds of people:
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  1. Those who can extrapolate
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  from incomplete data.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#93134

Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
>>   'sftp' works fine BUT used AS ftp it's more
>>   complicated to work with. 'scp' kinda hides
>>   most of the complexity - security without
>>   all the BS.
>>
>>   BUT, remember, you may have to open the correct
>>   ports for both SSH and SFTP .....
> 
> Are you somehow under the impression that you need to open more than one
> port for SSH and SFTP?

SOL (speed of light) is under a great many incorrect impressions.  Most 
of his Abe Simpson like ramblings here are filled with them daily.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#93004

On 06/10/2026 00:55, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2026-10-06 01:21, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>>> Yes, I enjoy writing about these weird quirks that I find in the ssh 
>>> tools
>>> (including rsync).  I find it amusing that ssh (and friends) - a tool we
>>> all use daily and rely on heavily - is still stuck, design-wise, in the
>>> 1980s.
>>
>> I just double-down on the 1980s mindset and use Telnet instead of
>> SSH for talking to things like Raspberry Pis which are on my own
>> LAN where nobody should be able to listen/connect anyway, unless
>> they can just walk over and steal its SD card anyway. Makes
>> everything much simpler, once you've installed the Telnet server.
>>
> 
> telnet does not send files, AFAIK.
> 
Huh. We used to make it do that, with base 64 encoding...

-- 
The New Left are the people they warned you about.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web