X-Git-Url: https://asedeno.scripts.mit.edu/gitweb/?a=blobdiff_plain;f=doc%2Ffaq.but;h=03de70d780ebfd657c4cfb87145a7858f0e00f1b;hb=4b372b0877d11330fe6b9d12ef8b5852b59754e2;hp=854207cdd60bccda580d11e2f1f288126e75e936;hpb=a1e622523e48125b7322cf4e53d504b9a6614c15;p=PuTTY.git diff --git a/doc/faq.but b/doc/faq.but index 854207cd..03de70d7 100644 --- a/doc/faq.but +++ b/doc/faq.but @@ -64,7 +64,11 @@ files into PuTTY's format. 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}? @@ -163,7 +167,7 @@ the wrong solution and we will not do it. If you have host keys available in the common \i\c{known_hosts} format, we have a script called -\W{http://tartarus.org/~simon-git/gitweb/?p=putty.git;a=blob;f=contrib/kh2reg.py;hb=HEAD}\c{kh2reg.py} +\W{https://git.tartarus.org/?p=simon/putty.git;a=blob;f=contrib/kh2reg.py;hb=HEAD}\c{kh2reg.py} to convert them to a Windows .REG file, which can be installed ahead of time by double-clicking or using \c{REGEDIT}. @@ -209,16 +213,25 @@ seems to be working so far. \S{faq-ports-general}{Question} What ports of PuTTY exist? -Currently, release versions of PuTTY tools only run on full Win32 -systems and Unix. \q{\i{Win32}} includes versions of Windows from -Windows 95 onwards (as opposed to the 16-bit Windows 3.1; see -\k{faq-win31}), up to and including Windows 7; and we know of no -reason why PuTTY should not continue to work on future versions -of Windows. +Currently, release versions of PuTTY tools only run on Windows +systems and Unix. + +\#{XXX-REVIEW-BEFORE-RELEASE: replace following two lines with: +As of 0.68, the supplied PuTTY executables run on versions of +Windows from XP onwards,} +PuTTY runs on versions of Windows from Windows 95 onwards (but not +the 16-bit Windows 3.1; see \k{faq-win31}), +up to and including Windows 10; and we know of no reason why PuTTY +should not continue to work on future versions of Windows. + +The 32-bit Windows executables we provide for the \q{\i{x86}} +processor architecture should also work fine on 64-bit processors +that are backward-compatible with that architecture. +\#{XXX-REVIEW-BEFORE-RELEASE: The 64-bit executables will only +work on 64-bit versions of Windows. They will run somewhat faster +than 32-bit executables would on the same processor, but will +consume slightly more memory.} -The Windows executables we provide are for the 32-bit \q{\i{x86}} -processor architecture, but they should work fine on 64-bit -processors that are backward-compatible with that architecture. (We used to also provide executables for Windows for the Alpha processor, but stopped after 0.58 due to lack of interest.) @@ -228,8 +241,8 @@ In the development code, a partial port to Mac OS exists (see 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 @@ -1041,7 +1054,8 @@ is triggered by PuTTY 0.58. This was fixed in 0.59. The \W{http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/wishlist/xp-wont-run}{\q{xp-wont-run}} entry in PuTTY's wishlist has more details. -\S{faq-system32}{Question} When I put PuTTY in +\S{faq-system32}{Question} When I put +\#{XXX-REVIEW-BEFORE-RELEASE 32-bit} PuTTY in \cw{C:\\WINDOWS\\\i{SYSTEM32}} on my \i{64-bit Windows} system, \i{\q{Duplicate Session}} doesn't work. @@ -1049,7 +1063,7 @@ The short answer is not to put the PuTTY executables in that location. On 64-bit systems, \cw{C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSTEM32} is intended to contain only 64-bit binaries; Windows' 32-bit binaries live in -\cw{C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSWOW64}. When a 32-bit program such as PuTTY runs +\cw{C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSWOW64}. When a 32-bit PuTTY executable runs on a 64-bit system, it cannot by default see the \q{real} \cw{C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSTEM32} at all, because the \W{http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa384187(v=vs.85).aspx}{File @@ -1079,15 +1093,21 @@ USB stick). I \i{clean up} after it? PuTTY will leave some Registry entries, and a random seed file, on -the PC (see \k{faq-settings}). If you are using PuTTY on a public -PC, or somebody else's PC, you might want to clean these up when you -leave. You can do that automatically, by running the command -\c{putty -cleanup}. (Note that this only removes settings for -the currently logged-in user on \i{multi-user systems}.) +the PC (see \k{faq-settings}). Windows 7 and up also remember some +information about recently launched sessions for the \q{jump list} +feature. + +If you are using PuTTY on a public PC, or somebody else's PC, you +might want to clean this information up when you leave. You can do +that automatically, by running the command \c{putty -cleanup}. See +\k{using-cleanup} in the documentation for more detail. (Note that +this only removes settings for the currently logged-in user on +\i{multi-user systems}.) If PuTTY was installed from the installer package, it will also -appear in \q{Add/Remove Programs}. Older versions of the uninstaller -do not remove the above-mentioned registry entries and file. +appear in \q{Add/Remove Programs}. Current versions of the installer +do not offer to remove the above-mentioned items, so if you want them +removed you should run \c{putty -cleanup} before uninstalling. \S{faq-dsa}{Question} How come PuTTY now supports \i{DSA}, when the website used to say how insecure it was?