Message-id: <4F297EA3.20008@cygwin.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:04:19 -0500
From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-to: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: IBM ssh gateway
References: <201202011046 DOT 40681 DOT swampdog AT ntlworld DOT com> <4F294184 DOT 9030805 AT cs DOT utoronto DOT ca> <201202011442 DOT 50193 DOT swampdog AT ntlworld DOT com>
In-reply-to: <201202011442.50193.swampdog@ntlworld.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On 2/1/2012 9:42 AM, Guy Harrison wrote:
>
> Hi Ryan,
>
> On Wednesday 01 February 2012 13:43:32 Ryan Johnson wrote:
>> On 01/02/2012 5:46 AM, Guy Harrison wrote:
>>> Hi Folks,
>>>
>>> Can anyone help interpret this? I am fairly certain the problem lies
>>> with IBM but I am no crypto expert. Is (for instance) the server
>>> rejecting the connection because (say) it does not understand ECDSA?
>>> Unfortunately I do not have an older instance of cygwin ssh to try that
>>> theory out. The failure is recent. I upgraded my cygwin instances over
>>> xmas.
>>>
>>> My primary concern is that the latter (linux) connection (after ~~~)
>>> may fail after a future upgrade.
>>
>> I would definitely check with your local network security folks. When I
>> was last at IBM I had trouble connecting from a certain machine -- just
>> that one -- and nobody could figure out why. Finally, it turned out that
>> I had a lot of locales installed and the long list of supported
>> languages announced by my ssh client triggered some firewall rule.
>
> Unfortunately I forgot to mention the problem occurs both from my home
> network and via my work network (which I could easily have believed was at
> fault - they've messed with it a lot recently). The ~~~ linux box above
> connects via my home network but I have an aix box at work that also
> connects successfully whereas work cygwin (that's on XP) fails in the same
> fashion as my original post.

So you're defining a successful connection as one where any key file is
ignored/invalidated and you're left to login with your password?  That's
what you're showing with the Linux machine.  If that's the benchmark, have
you tried eliminating your keys on your Cygwin machine to see if you get
to the same point as Linux?

-- 
Larry

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple