Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 01:16:23AM -0400, KS wrote: >> Greg Folkert wrote: >>> On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 00:40 -0400, KS wrote: >>>> The warning had following in it, is the :3 in the end the line number? >>>> >>>> Add correct host key in /home/foobar/.ssh/known_hosts to get rid of this >>>> message. >>>> Offending key in /home/foobar/.ssh/known_hosts:3 >>> Line number 3. >>> >>> Remove that current line and you should be good. >>> >> Thanks. But I think ssh-keygen method is more elegant even though both >> routes end up at the same place. > > How do you figure it's more elegant than using ed? > > I suppose it depends on how you define elegant. > > Most of my time is spent on old hardware. For me elegant is doing > something with the fewest cycles. Sed would be still more elegant but > then we have to add the 'cycles' my poor brain has to do to figure out > how to do it, plus the cycles to display sed's man page. Ed or vi is a > nice compromise. >
(As Greg pointed out) *If ssh-keygen is available* and I get the warning by ssh, all I need to do is give the command ssh-keygen -R $hostname (where hostname can be used from the earlier command via up-arrow or simple select+middle-click paste) and the host's entrie(s) are removed form the known_hosts file. Thus for me ssh-keygen has lesser chances of hosing my known_hosts file than vi or a sed command (which has the added overhead of using head-cycles). That is why I think it is elegant, not that I'm forcing others to do that way too :) Cheers, /KS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
