101–110 of 276 posts
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…
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…
It's cool that SSH is getting some love but I'm a little sad they're not being a little more ambitious with regard to new features, considering it seems like they're more or less creating a new thing. Looks like they're going to support connection migration but it would be cool (to me anyway) if they supported some of the roaming/intermittent connectivity of Mosh[1]. 1: https://mosh.org/
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…
h3sh | hush3 | qs | qsh | shh | shh3
qsh might be taken by QShell
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qshell
There's a whole github issue where the issue was bike shed to death.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I view it orthogonally: Making it easier to use our single company identity we use for every single service for SSH as well would make it so much easier to handle authorization and RBAC properly for Linux server management. Right now, we have to juggle SSH keys; I always wanted to move to SSH certificates instead, but there's not a lot of software around that yet (anyone interested in building some? Contact me). So h…
> use our single company identity we use for every single service for SSH as well How would that even work? Do you open your browser, log in, and then somehow transfer the session into your ssh client in a terminal? Does the browser assimilate the terminal? And let me remind you, HTTP authentication isn't a login form. It's the browser built-in "HTTP username + password" form and its cousins. We're talking HTTP 401.…
You start the ssh client in the terminal, it opens a browser to authenticate, and once you're logged in you go back to the terminal. The usual trick to exfiltrate the authentication token from the browser is that the ssh client runs an HTTP server on localhost to which you get redirected after authenticating.
Maybe they shall teach naming projects in CS.
Why not Windows 12 ? /s
That’s a shame. Lowered latency (and persistent sessions, so you don’t pay the connection cost each time) are the best things about Mosh (https://mosh.org/).
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…
Why not just SSH/QUIC, what does the HTTP/3 layer add that QUIC doesn’t already have?
> the keystroke latency during a session remains unchanged That’s a shame. Lowered latency (and persistent sessions, so you don’t pay the connection cost each time) are the best things about Mosh ( https://mosh.org/ ).