I think caution is good, but I am not sure &quot;Don&#x27;t use it&quot; is a fair assessment for all use cases given Mosh&#x27;s technology and track record over the years.  Of course SSH is more battle tested but, Mosh has a FAQ entry just for this concern:<p>&quot;In one concrete respect, the Mosh protocol is more secure than SSH&#x27;s: SSH relies on unauthenticated TCP to carry the contents of the secure stream. That means that an attacker can end an SSH connection with a single phony &quot;RST&quot; segment. By contrast, Mosh applies its security at a different layer (authenticating every datagram), so an attacker cannot end a Mosh session unless the attacker can continuously prevent packets from reaching the other side. A transient attacker can cause only a transient user-visible outage; once the attacker goes away, Mosh will resume the session.&quot;<p>&quot;However, in typical usage, Mosh relies on SSH to exchange keys at the beginning of a session, so Mosh will inherit the weaknesses of SSH—at least insofar as they affect the brief SSH session that is used to set up a long-running Mosh session.&quot;<p>Also see, &quot;Q: What is Mosh&#x27;s security track record so far?&quot; here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mosh.mit.edu&#x2F;#faq" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mosh.mit.edu&#x2F;#faq</a>