I personally don't share this belief that openssl is bad (in fact, for PHP developers, openssl is preferable to libmcrypt which has been abandoned since 2007), I just know it's a common sentiment of infosec people. :)
Sure. I simply use it for crypto primitives (e.g. aes-256-gcm) in environments where I cannot install libsodium from PECL (e.g. crypto_easybox() and crypto_easybox_open()).
Disables and removes dependency on OpenSSL. Many features,
including SSH protocol 1 are not supported and the set of crypto
options is greatly restricted. This will only work on systems
with native arc4random or /dev/urandom.
I haven't dug into the source code, but I'd wager that the crypto options that remain are Ed25519, ChaCha20-Poly1305, etc. (Don't quote me on this, however.)
Comments
The --without-openssl option is particularly attractive on Linux systems if you distrust openssl's code.
It is, but please note that OpenSSH uses very little of OpenSSL's code. None of the serious bugs lately had any impact on OpenSSH.
That's probably very reassuring.
I personally don't share this belief that openssl is bad (in fact, for PHP developers, openssl is preferable to libmcrypt which has been abandoned since 2007), I just know it's a common sentiment of infosec people. :)
Just because OpenSSL is very hard to replace doesn't mean it's not very bad.
Sure. I simply use it for crypto primitives (e.g. aes-256-gcm) in environments where I cannot install libsodium from PECL (e.g. crypto_easybox() and crypto_easybox_open()).
It is also useful for embedded devices with small flash/ROM.
What functionality do you lose if you build it with that option?
From the article:
I haven't dug into the source code, but I'd wager that the crypto options that remain are Ed25519, ChaCha20-Poly1305, etc. (Don't quote me on this, however.)So if I (like most people with modern systems) only use SSH2 + AES, I should be OK?
Have you switched everything to Ed25519 keys?