for one, it is not encrypted,
for two, the receiving end doesn't listen for OOB (most likely because
sending side doesn't encrypt it)
The sending side doesn't encrypt it because OOB concept (flushing unsent
data) is incompatible with simple *single-stream* encryption. flushing
breaks the decryption of the data -- it corrupts the stream, so it becomes
unencryptable.
Jan
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > > Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > > > You supply the indication to the backend, and I will see that the
> > > > backend processes it properly.
> > >
> > > You're on ;-)
> > >
> > > Signaling the cancel request via OOB sounds reasonable, as long as
> > > nothing else is using it and all the systems we care about support it.
> >
> > SSH doesn't have OOB. You can't send an OOB via SSH encrypted channel.
>
> I have trouble buying that. SSH is just the socket filter. Perhaps the
> OOB data is not encrypted like the normal data?
-- Gospel of Jesus is the saving power of God for all who believe --
Jan Vicherek ## To some, nothing is impossible. ## www.ied.com/~honza
>>> Free Software Union President ... www.fslu.org <<<
Interactive Electronic Design Inc. -#- PGP: finger honza@ied.com
