Secure Secure Shell (2015)
There are some good points here, but it's a bit over the top.<p>For example: "NIST is considered harmful". Have you seen the latest NIST SP 800-63-3 on authentication? There was a public comment phase, the whole thing is hosted on github and it has deprecated the whole "your password must contain uppercase letters, lowercase letters, numbers, special characters (but not single quotes as our database doesn't like that) and a haiku" nonsense - the only remaining recommended password restrictions are minimum length and check against a blacklist of common passwords.<p>Dual EC is considered harmful, and perhaps in a more general sense closed standards and unexplained constants in crypto algorithms. Whether the label NIST is on something or not makes very little difference (or are you going to tell me next that AES is insecure because the US government approved it)?<p>And this is the kind of thing that makes my hair stand up: "The hash function SHA1(SHA2(x)) is just as secure as SHA2 (it has less bits of course but no better attacks)." Yes, I know what you mean, but you've just given us a lecture on why key length matters.<p>That said, there are some good recommendations here for setting SSH up securely. Meanwhile I still have to deal with a server that shall remain unnamed and that truncates passwords to the first 8 bytes ... <i>sigh</i>