Live data from Hacker News

SSH3: Faster and rich secure shell using HTTP/3

github.com

51–60 of 276 posts

Re: SSH3: Faster and rich secure shell using HTTP/3

#51

I do hate the name ssh3. I was glad to see this at the top of the repo: > SSH3 is probably going to change its name. It is still the SSH Connection Protocol (RFC4254) running on top of HTTP/3 Extended connect, but the required changes are heavy and too distant from the philosophy of popular SSH implementations to be considered for integration. The specification draft has already been renamed ("Remote Terminals over H…

Maybe SSH/3 instead ( SSH + HTTP /3 )?

[dead]

Re: SSH3: Faster and rich secure shell using HTTP/3

#52

I do hate the name ssh3. I was glad to see this at the top of the repo: > SSH3 is probably going to change its name. It is still the SSH Connection Protocol (RFC4254) running on top of HTTP/3 Extended connect, but the required changes are heavy and too distant from the philosophy of popular SSH implementations to be considered for integration. The specification draft has already been renamed ("Remote Terminals over H…

Yeah, that's not cool.

Re: SSH3: Faster and rich secure shell using HTTP/3

#53
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah we got those good old network ppl or their corporate (don't knows much about tech) overlord to thank for that. If you ever using wifi in the airport or even some hotel with work suite unit around the world, you will notice that Apple Mail can't send or receive emails. It is probably some company wide policy to first block port 25 (that is even the case with some hosting providers) all in the name of fighting SPA…

Port 25 is insecure and unencrypted; EU doesn't even need ChatControl to hoover up that data, and you'd better believe anything going through an airport wifi router unencrypted is being hoovered by someone no matter what jurisdiction you're in. Apple mail prefers 587 for secure SMTP and 993 for secure IMAP. People were (wisely) blocking port 25 twenty years ago.

Ah thanks for the correction. Just changed my post above to 587. What I mean is why block all the ports, just keep it open let the user decide if they want to use it. And linux people can always use ufw on their side to be safe. Back in the dot com days, there were people also using telnet, but that got changed to ssh.

Is it because it is hard to detect what type of the request that is being sent? Stream vs Non Stream etc?

Re: SSH3: Faster and rich secure shell using HTTP/3

#55
Yes, Yes, Yes.

Firstly, I love the satirical name of tempaccount420, I was also just watching memes and this post is literally me (ryan gosling)

As I was also thinking about this thing literally yesterday being a bit delusional on hoping to create a better ssh using http/3 or something or some minor improvement because I made a comment about tor routing and linking it to things like serveo, I was thinking of enhancing that idea or something lol.

Actually, it seems that I have already starred this project but I had forgotten about it, this is primarily the reason why I star github project and this might be where I might have got some inspiration of http/3 in the first place with SSH.

Seems like a really great project (I think)

Now, one question that I have is could SSH be made modular in the sense that we can split the transport layer apart from SSH as this project does, without too much worries?

Like, I want to create a SSH-ish something to lets say something like iroh being the transport layer, are there any libraries or resources which can do something like that? (I won't do it for iroh but I always like mixing and matching and I am thinking of some different ideas like SSH over matrix/xmpp/signal too/ the possibilities could be limitless!)

Re: SSH3: Faster and rich secure shell using HTTP/3

#56

I do hate the name ssh3. I was glad to see this at the top of the repo: > SSH3 is probably going to change its name. It is still the SSH Connection Protocol (RFC4254) running on top of HTTP/3 Extended connect, but the required changes are heavy and too distant from the philosophy of popular SSH implementations to be considered for integration. The specification draft has already been renamed ("Remote Terminals over H…

SSHTTP

Re: SSH3: Faster and rich secure shell using HTTP/3

#57

I do hate the name ssh3. I was glad to see this at the top of the repo: > SSH3 is probably going to change its name. It is still the SSH Connection Protocol (RFC4254) running on top of HTTP/3 Extended connect, but the required changes are heavy and too distant from the philosophy of popular SSH implementations to be considered for integration. The specification draft has already been renamed ("Remote Terminals over H…

SSH over 3: SO(3). Like the rotation group.

Re: SSH3: Faster and rich secure shell using HTTP/3

#58
post #48
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that wasn't really a thing that was an issue with SSH. Host *.internal.example.com ProxyCommand ssh -q -W %h:%p hop.internal.example.com in the SSH client config would make everything in that domain hop over that hop server. It's one extra connection - but with everything correctly configured that should be barely noticeable. Auth is also proxied through.

Is there a way to configure the jump (hop) server to reroute the request based on the value of %h and/or %p? Otherwise, it's going to be quite difficult to configure something like HTTP virtual hosts. EDIT: Looking at the relevant RFC [1] and the OpenSSH sshd_config manual [2], it looks like the answer is that the protocol supports having the jump server decide what to do with the host/port information, but the OpenS…

Yes, but it's not in the sshd config, it's in the ssh config. See ssh_config(5), search for Remote to find the most relevant sections.
Post reply on HN