Re: ssh-ing in inside private network
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 02:40:58PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Thu 31 Mar 2016 at 14:38:05 +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 01:32:05PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > There is also dropbear as a lightweight SSH2 server and client. Using
> > > it in preference to openssh is useful for resource constrained machines.
> >
> > Yes, there are nifty tricks like embedding dropbear in the initrd, so
> > you can, e.g. enter the LUKS encryption passphrase to a server over the
> > 'net.
> >
> > But I'd consider all of that "advanced usage" :-)
>
> Indeed it is.
>
> I had in mind a machine with 1GB of disk space; every MB of usage
> counts.
Nah -- 1GB is luxury: the whole openssh server is less than 0.8 MB.
Now with 4MB we're talking (one of my customers has a small embedded
Linux thing with 4MB flash and 4GB RAM; besides it's some 486 without
floating point: there we have to tread carefully :-)
But the openssh server from "back then" was smaller too...
> openssh-server takes six times as much space as dropbear; and
> that is without taking its dependencies into account! If all the
> features of openssh are not needed dropbear is as simple to install and
> use. Most people would not notice any difference.
But yes, basically agreed. If I had to redo the thing above, I'd
consider dropbear; that said, a re-doing would mean some raspi-like
hardware, which will be a "supercomputer" compared to what's installed
there now :-)
regards
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlb9KLgACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZDKgCfbqipMdGpiu0SSIPqr5IzwUbh
XMYAni35beWnv3zny3DViFB2qlpTcsTk
=niKY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: