Re: PuTTY SSH client security

2014-07-14 Thread Virgo Pärna
On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 12:13:10 -0400 (EDT), Stephen Powell wrote: > > I think you meant to say "susceptible", not "suspectible". > But otherwise, that's a good point. > Oops, sorry. -- Virgo Pärna virgo.pa...@mail.ee -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with

Re: PuTTY SSH client security

2014-07-12 Thread Stephen Powell
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:14:31 -0400 (EDT), Virgo Pärna wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:24:50 +0100, Darac Marjal > wrote: >> >> PuTTY is *not* based on OpenSSL[1], so it has never been susceptible to >> the heartbleed bug. >> > > And even if it were based on OpenSSL, it would not have been su

Re: PuTTY SSH client security

2014-07-11 Thread Virgo Pärna
On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:24:50 +0100, Darac Marjal wrote: > > PuTTY is *not* based on OpenSSL[1], so it has never been susceptible to > the heartbleed bug. > And even if it were based on OpenSSL, it would not have been suspectible to heartbleed bug, because ssh protocol was not suspectible to

Re: PuTTY SSH client security

2014-07-10 Thread Stephen Powell
On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 05:24:50 -0400 (EDT), Darac Marjal wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 03:19:07AM -0600, Kitty Cat wrote: >>I use PuTTY to connect to my Debian boxes. >> >>I was concerned about whether PuTTY is susceptible to the Heartbleed bug, >>etc. as I noticed that the program

Re: PuTTY SSH client security

2014-07-10 Thread Darac Marjal
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 03:19:07AM -0600, Kitty Cat wrote: >I use PuTTY to connect to my Debian boxes. > >I was concerned about whether PuTTY is susceptible to the Heartbleed bug, >etc. as I noticed that the program has not had any updates in quite some >time. > >[1]http://www