Yes. SSH-1 support has always been available in PuTTY.
However, the SSH-1 protocol has many weaknesses and is no longer
-considered secure; it should be avoided if at all possible.
+considered secure; you should use SSH-2 instead if at all possible.
+
+\#{XXX-REVIEW-BEFORE-RELEASE:
+As of 0.68, PuTTY will no longer fall back to SSH-1 if the server
+doesn't appear to support SSH-2; you must explicitly ask for SSH-1. }
\S{faq-localecho}{Question} Does PuTTY support \i{local echo}?
(We used to also provide executables for Windows for the Alpha
processor, but stopped after 0.58 due to lack of interest.)
-In the development code, partial ports to the Mac OSes exist (see
+In the development code, a partial port to Mac OS exists (see
\k{faq-mac-port}).
Currently PuTTY does \e{not} run on Windows CE (see \k{faq-wince}).
We do not have release-quality ports for any other systems at the
-present time. If anyone told you we had an EPOC port, or an iPaq port,
-or any other port of PuTTY, they were mistaken. We don't.
+present time. If anyone told you we had an Android port, or an iOS
+port, or any other port of PuTTY, they were mistaken. We don't.
There are some third-party ports to various platforms, mentioned
on the
in the source distribution. This should build you Unix
ports of Plink, PuTTY itself, PuTTYgen, PSCP, PSFTP, and also
\i\c{pterm} - an \cw{xterm}-type program which supports the same
-terminal emulation as PuTTY. We do not yet have a Unix port of
-Pageant.
+terminal emulation as PuTTY. \#{XXX-REVIEW-BEFORE-RELEASE:}
+We do not yet have a Unix port of Pageant.
If you don't have \i{Gtk}, you should still be able to build the
command-line tools.
-Note that Unix PuTTY has mostly only been tested on Linux so far;
-portability problems such as BSD-style ptys or different header file
-requirements are expected.
-
\S{faq-unix-why}{Question} What's the point of the Unix port? Unix
has OpenSSH.
C at least have stopped being backwards compatible to Win32s. Also,
the last time we tried this it didn't work very well.
-If you're interested in running PuTTY under Windows 3.1, help and
-testing in this area would be very welcome!
-
\S{faq-mac-port}{Question} Will there be a port to the \I{Mac OS}Mac?
We hope so!
We have no plans to write such a port ourselves; none of us has an
iPhone, and developing and publishing applications for it looks
-awkward and expensive. Such a port would probably depend upon the
-stalled Mac OS X port (see \k{faq-mac-port}).
+awkward and expensive.
However, there is a third-party SSH client for the iPhone and
iPod\_Touch called \W{http://www.instantcocoa.com/products/pTerm/}{pTerm},
ways to implement DSA which do not suffer nearly as badly from this
weakness, and indeed which don't need to rely on random numbers at
all. For this reason we now believe PuTTY's DSA implementation is
-probably OK. However, if you have the choice, we still recommend you
-use RSA instead.
+probably OK.
+
+The recently added elliptic-curve signature methods are also DSA-style
+algorithms, so they have this same weakness in principle. Our ECDSA
+implementation uses the same defence as DSA, while our Ed25519
+implementation uses the similar system (but different in details) that
+the Ed25519 spec mandates.
\S{faq-virtuallock}{Question} Couldn't Pageant use
\cw{VirtualLock()} to stop private keys being written to disk?
projects / PuTTY.git / blobdiff