SSH vs SSL/Telnet

tyr asks: "I am setting up a masquerade server for our church to access the Internet. I want to be able to remotely administer the server, but other people have concerns about security. I have decided to implement some type of encrypted login. I have heard rumors that SSH compresses the stream to cut down on the bloat caused by encryption. Is this really significant for a text only login? Anyway I just wanted to see discussion on the relative technical merits of each of the options like SSH 1.x, SSH 2.x, OpenSSH, SSL/telnet, and any others you would recommend."

Comments

OpenSSH

[The Iconoclast]

one should definately go with OpenSSH, as it is 100% compatible with ssh 1.x. Hardly anyone uses ssh 2.x because of it's licencing issues. There are numerous Free/open clients for the ssh 1.x protocol for many platforms. OpenSSH was based on the last opensource version of ssh 1.x. The OpenBSD team fixed all of its bugs and ran it though a security audit. It is very tight. They are a whole lot quicker about fixing new bugs then the normal ssh guys. The recent buffer overflows and DOS vuenrablities are nonexisitant in OpenSSH.

A wealthy eccentric who marches to the beat of a different drum. But you may call me "Noodle Noggin."