<ba135a59d93e4d50ac9a8b8d75ad513f at localhost> <141516AA-2018-43ED-B6B2-FA253F827145 at lvnv.com> <9088D4EF-D336-4CBF-9C32-1939E8202887 at myrealbox.com> <D24C3A54-35D8-4CAB-B41F-5B07E2E2723C at lvnv.com> Message-ID: <7d98f3a1a83ce97eefde83e13ed08836 at localhost> X-Sender: ecrist at secure-computing.net Received: from 74-95-66-25-Minnesota.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [74.95.66.25] via tank.he-ip6.secure-computing.net [2001:470:1f01:724::150] with HTTP/1.1 (POST); Thu, 08 May 2008 12:29:09 -0500 User-Agent: Secure Computing WebMail Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, 8 May 2008 10:21:21 -0700, M K <mike at lvnv.com> wrote: > > On May 8, 2008, at 8:29 AM, Stroller wrote: > >> >> On 8 May 2008, at 03:38, M K wrote: >>> ... >>>> The ssh command has the option to specify what version is used when >>>> connecting to a remote host. I believe it's ssh -p <port> - >>>> <version> >>>> username at host, replace <version> with 1 or 2. I think if you put >>>> a 1 >>>> there, things will work just fine. >>> >>> >>> No luck... I tried it just to be sure. >>> it has to be SSH v2 >>> >>> this is the error I get by the way... >>> channel 0: open failed: resource shortage: Channel open failed >>> >>> and like I said, it only happens in openSSH 4.6 and later... >>> >>> I'm sure it's bug in their SSH Daemon...so I need to get an old >>> port of OpenSSH >> >> It might just be that the client on your machine is trying to >> enforce security standards which weren't available when the older >> server was written. It may not be the version you have to change, >> but something else - look, for example, at the variety of -o options >> in `man ssh`. >> >> You might find that `ssh -v hostname` (or `ssh -v -v hostname` or >> `ssh -v -v -v hostname`) gives more information about the problem >> and enables you to find a workaround (using the current client). >> >> Stroller. > > thanks, those are good ideas. > > I've already sent them the ssh -vvv <ip> output so they could see > where everything was getting gummed up... > I haven't heard back from them... > > but in the meantime, I have to shell into another box then shell into > the switch...it's just a pain... > > I guess I could look at it like it's inherently more secure ... <???> Why not try sending us the output? Eric