<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: SSH Organization Tips</title>
	<atom:link href="http://eric.lubow.org/2007/linux-security/ssh-organization-tips/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://eric.lubow.org/2007/linux-security/ssh-organization-tips/</link>
	<description>Thoughts, musings, and other useless idealistic systems hoopla.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:04:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: eric</title>
		<link>http://eric.lubow.org/2007/linux-security/ssh-organization-tips/comment-page-1/#comment-5</link>
		<dc:creator>eric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Feb 2007 02:40:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://eric.lubow.org/blog/2007/linux-security/26/ssh-organization-tips/#comment-5</guid>
		<description>In actuality, I just said to use DSA for consistancy.  I generally find it better to pick a method and stick to it.  To answer your question, my understanding from reading around (as I am no mathematical genius) is that the OpenSSH implementation of both RSA and DH/DSS are roughly equally secure, but your statement is correct (that DSA is just a signing algorithm).  There is a group of links with further explanation on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/linux-security/48093-openssh-user-host-authentication-rsa-versus-dsa-provides-stronger-security.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Linux Forurms&lt;/a&gt;.  The creators of Putty don&#039;t seem to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/faq.html#faq-dsa&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;like&lt;/a&gt; DSA though. -eric</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In actuality, I just said to use DSA for consistancy.  I generally find it better to pick a method and stick to it.  To answer your question, my understanding from reading around (as I am no mathematical genius) is that the OpenSSH implementation of both RSA and DH/DSS are roughly equally secure, but your statement is correct (that DSA is just a signing algorithm).  There is a group of links with further explanation on <a href="http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/linux-security/48093-openssh-user-host-authentication-rsa-versus-dsa-provides-stronger-security.html" rel="nofollow">Linux Forurms</a>.  The creators of Putty don&#8217;t seem to <a href="http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/faq.html#faq-dsa" rel="nofollow">like</a> DSA though. -eric</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: xenoterracide</title>
		<link>http://eric.lubow.org/2007/linux-security/ssh-organization-tips/comment-page-1/#comment-4</link>
		<dc:creator>xenoterracide</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:57:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://eric.lubow.org/blog/2007/linux-security/26/ssh-organization-tips/#comment-4</guid>
		<description>I have to ask. why DSA over RSA? A little research told me that DSA can&#039;t do encryption only signing, and RSA is faster at verification. I seem to remember reading somewhere that RSA is more secure.

--Caleb Cushing
xenoterracide@gmail.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to ask. why DSA over RSA? A little research told me that DSA can&#8217;t do encryption only signing, and RSA is faster at verification. I seem to remember reading somewhere that RSA is more secure.</p>
<p>&#8211;Caleb Cushing<br />
<a href="mailto:xenoterracide@gmail.com">xenoterracide@gmail.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
