scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) gabbled:
boltar@caprica.universe writes:On Fri, 17 Apr 2026 15:20:09 -0000 (UTC)>
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled:In article <10rtgq7$2h4os$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:wrote:On Fri, 17 Apr 2026 14:04:20 -0000 (UTC)
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled:In article <10rt267$1eh57$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe>>>>>>On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 20:29:37 +0100>
A hacked version of ssh could save or forward everything it receives.
Not if it can't read the host key because it doesn't have
permissions to open the file the key is stored in, and so it
Why wouldn't it have permissions if a user has set up the whole thing?
....because the file containing the host private key is owned by
root, and not the user? And the client has a cached copy of the
host public key locally whent hey connect?
Oh FFS, the hacker server would use whatever keys the hacker wanted it to
use. Do try and keep up.
You don't seem to have an understanding of the session
establishment protocol used by ssh, or the context of the
thread you've butted into (context: the ability for a
non-privileged process to bind to ports below 1024).
Ah the irony :) I started the thread you idiot. Not worth reading anything
else you wrote if you can't even get that correct.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.