From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32465 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2015 10:43:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 32449 invoked by uid 89); 28 Oct 2015 10:43:45 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mailhost.u-strasbg.fr Received: from mailhost.u-strasbg.fr (HELO mailhost.u-strasbg.fr) (130.79.222.217) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:43:44 +0000 Received: from mailhost.u-strasbg.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antispam (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CDBE22E95 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:43:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from mailhost.u-strasbg.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5917F22EA2 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:43:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from lmr.u-strasbg.fr (lmr3.u-strasbg.fr [172.30.21.3]) by mr7.u-strasbg.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 477BC22E95 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:43:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from lmr.u-strasbg.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B8ADCA for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:43:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from E6510Muller (gw-ics.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.210.225]) (Authenticated sender: mullerp) by lmr3.u-strasbg.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EAD23B4 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:43:38 +0100 (CET) From: "Pierre Muller" To: "'GDB Development'" Subject: Question about SSH protocol for developper access Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:43:00 -0000 Message-ID: <001101d1116d$817b8b80$8472a280$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg00102.txt.bz2 =A0 I am not sure this is the correct mailing list for this question, but I was wondering if it would not be better to allow now also SSH version 2 keys for remote write access to Gnu repositories. =A0 The reason for me to ask is simply that protocol 1 is now disabled by default on Cygwin installation. This means that ssh-agent, which I normally use to avoid having to type my password each time I access git repository for instance, does not work for my SSH-version 1 key anymore=85 =A0 I suppose that this has to do with the fact that version 1 is less =93secure=94 than version 2. what are the reasons why GNU still insists on only using version 1 keys? If someone can tell me where would be a better place to ask this question, it would also be great, and I would be happy to move the topic to another list. Pierre Muller as pascal language maintainer of GDB