Re: ssh, /dev/urandom

[tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@kemisten.nu> writes:

>    Telnet has worse security than even a buggy miserably fake ssh.
> 
> Telnet has _no_ security.  It doesn't have fake security, which you
> get by using crappy random bits and Open SSH.  That is a huge
> difference.  Open SSH was designed for security, telnet was _not_.

What?  So you are saying that telnet is better than a fake ssh?  

Why?  I thought you stand up for security?!

At best, you can certainly argue that the fake ssh should be well
documented, but this is no reason for exclusion.