Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

blogs.msdn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 404 posts

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#251

Post by yellowapple »

caskance wrote: post #125
yellowapple wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure about reading , but several distributions (notably, Gentoo and Slackware) encourage (and in the former case, require) users to configure and compile Linux from source instead of relying on a binary installation. Of course, this doesn't do anything against a malicious install environment or a backdoored compiler, but it's a start.

Yes, and that's why so few people use those distributions.

Never claimed they were popular. Just that Linux From Scratch isn't the only option for those wishing to to run a kernel they built from source.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#252

Post by wosos »

jevgeni wrote: post #157
jadeddrag wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your link shows us how the NSA would like you to secure your systems, not their love for hiding their exploits behind closed sourced code. No snark points needed here!

Why would NSA bother with OSs, if they could get direct access to firmware, theoretically?

Costs?

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#253

Post by yellowapple »

72deluxe wrote: post #196
yellowapple wrote: post #83

The only thing left for them to do is to include Cygwin (or some equivalent) as a built-in Windows feature. Hell's not only freezing over, but freezing everything else with it. What a time to be alive.

Lots of people keep saying this on this thread, but why would you want GNU tools on Windows ? Have you ever wanted to put Apple's runtime on your Linux box? Or MSVC runtimes on your Linux machine? Weirdly, everyone wants the opposite.

I'm not interested specifically with GNU's tools, just standard Unix tools in general; Microsoft could easily use Cygwin (for example) as a reference point for porting/packaging the BSD userland to/for Windows, for example.

> Have you ever wanted to put Apple's runtime on your Linux box?

Not in that sense, but a Linux + BSD userland would be neat. Apple's runtime is basically that minus Linux plus Mach/XNU plus Cocoa.

> Or MSVC runtimes on your Linux machine?

Good God no.

> Weirdly, everyone wants the opposite.

Not universally true if you count Wine as "MSVC runtimes on your Linux machine".

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#254

Post by eropple »

baldfat wrote: post #219
eropple wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not using default ports will mildly confuse automated scans and do absolutely nothing to a determined attacker. Or somebody with nmap, which is not the same thing. If you're whitelisting IPs, you may as well run it on port 22.

No it makes it harder and more of a pain. Trust me I have a friend who loves breaking into my personal server. That one trick two ssh running on different ports screwed with him for a long, long time. He is a genius of a hacker and has been doing it for a living for years. When he finally got in he was so pissed that threw him.

You are describing an anecdotal instance of a person whose capabilities are not established being thrown by something that nmap will catch on a normal scan.

Color me skeptical. I shall decline to "trust you."

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#255

Post by graffitici »

72deluxe wrote: post #189
graffitici wrote: post #166

I wish Windows just became a POSIX compliant OS. I think that would solve a lot of these smaller issues in an elegant way. Apple did a very smart job with Mac OS X, to the point where even I switched to a Mac after having Linux for so many years. It's incredible how I can install packages using homebrew and friends.. Come on Microsoft, go all the way!

I think homebrew and MacPorts are niche though. Your "normal" OSX user wouldn't install them. Heck, I ran Linux for years and years and I haven't even installed them under OSX because if I wanted to run BSD or Linux, I'd have installed BSD or Linux. It's like installing all those GNU tools on Windows to make it more like Linux, and putting Homebrew etc. on OSX to make it more like Linux. Why not just use Linux or BSD…

I think the key point here is this: you're right that regular users don't need homebrew; developers certainly do. By having an analog of homebrew for Windows, Microsoft can attract more developers, which then would translate into a better app infrastructure for Windows. This would then clearly benefit regular users as well.

I haven't used Windows in a very long time, but whenever I sit by a friend's computer, I find it astonishing how badly designed Windows apps are. Certainly Apple's fixation with design created a culture of beautiful apps. But having more developers would also probably improve the situation

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#256

Post by [deleted] »

halo wrote: post #128
cturner wrote: post #60

For all Balmer's thing of dancing on a stage and chanting "developers", there was no point under Gates or he at which Microsoft felt like a pro-developer company. That has completely changed in the last eighteen months. Each time I think "wouldn't it be cool if" I'm finding a few weeks later that someone at Microsoft is well ahead of me. How much easier it will be to ship my sucky roguelikes to Windows users in this…

>Wishlist: tmux, emacs, vi, netcat, shell option for vi-mode, rc-file with preferences, ncurses library, something simpler than curses, zip and unzip No thankyou. I can certainly understand including SSH support, but I don't want what is pretty much the only remaining viable non-Unix platform to start bundling horribly dated and clunky Unix-like commands and bloated GNU tools.

[deleted]

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#257

Post by jnbiche »

roblabla wrote: post #146
jrochkind1 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should microsoft just make their primary commercial product free for everyone? I am curious to know what percentage of MS profit is from OS sales, but I assume it's very high? Apple can make their OS free cause they make money on the hardware, which 99% of people buy from them to run the OS on. And of course linux and other open source is another story.

I don't think microsoft makes that much money from customers buying their OS directly, but rather from OEMs installing Windows by default on the laptops/desktops they are selling. Never once have I met a person buying a standalone windows upgrade/windows OS. Either they end up buying a new computer, they stick with whatever was installed on their computer (hello, XP/Vista users), or they illegally download the upgrad…

If you illegally download upgrades, then you're almost certainly infecting your computer with significant malware.

Do people not care about this?

I'm not a big Windows fan (I've run Linux as my primary OS for years), but I've bought several Windows OS packages over the years for work (testing software).

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#258

Post by dmckeon »

david-given wrote: post #176
wumbernang wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't agree more. As a die hard Unix guy and ex Slashdot-esque zealot (colloquially a bit of a twat). Yet I'm knocking out PowerShell all the time now and dread having to log into the pile of CentOS kit I have lying around. It is arcane. Even after 15 years I spend most of my time in the manpages or working out another damn config format. Literally did a two liner to scrape a web page, parse it and call a REST end…

I did find an open source implementation here: http://pash.sourceforge.net/ Don't know if it's any good --- never tried it; it says it's about half complete, but I don't know if it's a useful half. After looking at the docs, you could do a lot of what Powershell does with Unix shells; you'd need a different set of conventions, where instead of using unformatted text as an intermediate format you used a streamable tab…

Try exploiting find(1) with -printf, with formats like:

    find "$@" -printf "%TY %Tm %Td %TT %1y %4m %3n %4U:%-3G %8s  %p\t%l\n"
and flavor the output elements and format to suit. (this sorts by date well, but would do less well on file or symlink names with embedded newlines - swap \0 for \n to wrestle with those.)

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#259

Post by 8_hours_ago »

lstamour wrote: post #198
bad_user wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been historically what can be described a Microsoft hater and I have to tell you, missing official SSH support has never been a hate generator and insinuating otherwise is insulting. The first reason for which I have historically hated Microsoft is because of how they fought open standards. I can't believe that Microsoft changed in any meaningful way when I can't get a Lumia phone or Outlook to work with CalDAV…

CalDAV and CardDAV are supported on Windows Phone 8 since GDR2 as the method to sync Gmail accounts. OneDrive supports ODF via Office Online. OpenGL runs fine on Windows and is less relevant now than ever thanks to Metal and DirectX 12, etc. Oh and the new Outlook app for iOS and Android also has broad support for competitors and open standards. Sure, it's through the cloud, but it works. If you want to punish compan…

> CalDAV and CardDAV are supported on Windows Phone 8 since GDR2 as the method to sync Gmail accounts.

Yes, but it only works with Gmail (and iCloud) accounts, not arbitrary CalDAV/CardDav servers. Some people have had success with adding a fake iCloud account then modifying the server address, but it's not officially supported and really shouldn't be relied on to work properly.

I really hope that Windows 10 Mobile includes official support for CalDAV and CardDAV.

Re: Looking Forward: Support for Secure Shell

#260

Post by zo1 »

_hnwo wrote: post #226
egwor wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with putty? I've been happily using it for a few years. What have I been missing out on?!

just read this: https://noncombatant.org/2014/03/03/downloading-software-saf...

I don't understand. Why doesn't Simon Tatham the original author of Putty just buy a domain, and put Putty there? Looks like he's piggy-backing off-of someone else's domain, and then relying on supposedly odd RSA/DSA signing of the provided binaries? Odd, to say the least.
Post reply on HN