Looking Forward: Microsoft Support for Secure Shell (SSH)

This post has moved. Read more about our SSH plans on the PowerShell blog


Comments (124)

  1. Rob Nelson says:

    Angel, thank you so much for trying a third time. This is huge news and I look forward to its release!

  2. Kris says:

    Will SCP support also be included? Great news either way!

  3. xorgy says:

    Very happy to hear this, try to make sure everything is upstream and open, or people won't trust it, especially given the current level of public trust in Microsoft regarding their cooperation with NSA and others.

    I wish you all the best, and if you want some help thinking of how you might want to configure it by default, take a look at this article.


    and try to make an effort to configure it to prefer the more secure methods.

  4. Robert says:

    SCP is going into that mix as well I hope.

  5. Mr.Robot says:

    @Kris & Robert: OpenSSH includes SCP and SFTP clients/servers.

  6. Matt says:

    I am over-excited. Great news. Thanks guys πŸ™‚

  7. Jake says:

    I have been working with SSH in PowerShell using the Posh-SSH module and so far I think it has done a good job. A few things that I noticed while working on this.

    1. bash escapes differently than PowerShell

        – for example this command in powershell (awk '"'"'{print $2}'"'"')  = (awk '{print $2}') in bash

    2. executing a script with Invoke-SSHCommand does not wait for the script to finish – waiting for the script to finish before exiting as complete will help.

    looking forward to the native version.

  8. Max Burke says:

    Please please please! This feature would be incredibly useful, especially for mixed development environments!

  9. Jeremiah says:

    SSH Server support is welcomed.  Would be nice to be able to SSH into my Win machines from a non-Windows machines from time to time.

  10. Mike says:

    Bhwa ha ha – yea, keep looking 'forward' noobs, because if you looked BACK you'd see that Unix had SSH 20 years ago!

  11. Bicentennial.M says:

    Hopefully this means that Microsoft will be sponsoring OpenBSD development, which maintains the OpenSSH project:



  12. Mike Sol says:

    Any chance we might see single-window RDP integrated with this similarly to how SSH will forward an X11 session?

  13. Jon Conley says:

    This is some of the best news I have heard in IT in a while!

  14. Great news says:

    It's only taken 20 years for this request to come to fruition, and we're only talking about client side support. Maybe another 20 years to get native SSHd running on the Windows platform?  So progressive.

  15. Em. says:

    Will this be available for Win Vista/7/8?

  16. Adam says:

    I wonder if it will support the real beauty features of ssh like sftp, local and remote port forwarding/tunneling, the dynamic SOCKS proxy, … … display forwarding seems unlikely

  17. MichaelCramer says:

    @Great news

    I suspect this blog post is stating two things:

    As an alternative to the standard WS-Man Implementation (ISO Standard) of WinRM, you'll also be able to use native SSH clients to connect and manage Powershell. This implies at the very least a somewhat native implementation of SSHD, with and without features.

    Standard shell command problems will still exist between shells such as Bash and Powershell, which will likely go unresolved with this implementation (though it would be funny, but not likely, for them to fix those issues).

    I suspect at the very least we'll have SSH Key support and standard auth stack support. You'll likely get all the authentication methods that SSH can support.

    Microsoft's involvement in the OpenSSH project is to provide SSH the ability to hook into Windows' auth mehcanisms, modify the Windows auth mechanisms (if needed), or provide a new auth mechanism for Windows to leverage SSH.

    We probably won't see anything like Bash for Windows, which I think most people expect when they think "SSH for Windows". They are very different things.

    I think the most or least interesting part about this, however, is that ultimately you'll lose the OO nature of Powershell at the SSH client level. Once the data is at the SSH client, you're back to working with data streams. Unless they provide a completely new interface for PowerShell native data to come down to the SSH client. Which would be really interesting (and really fun).

    However, for a vast majority of Administrative uses data streams are fine. But the WinRM implementation in Powershell today provides for object data to come down into powershell objects on the client.

  18. B says:

    Sorry but this is pathetic. Should have been done 20 years ago.

  19. MichaelCramer says:

    SCP/SFTP would be a nice welcome (coming from a Windows Administrator). As it stands right now to get files onto a Windows Core server I have to usually go out of band (SMB) from my powershell session, which makes the whole thing rather painful.

    So I highly suspect this feature will be coming to Powershell.

  20. Of course the devil will be in the detail of how it actually turns out when completed, but this is definitely positive news! I can think of many ways this might potentially be useful, not necessarily fixing unsolved problems, but definitely adding additional options for how some activities might be done.

  21. old graybeard says:

    This is excellent. Not only is the actual product-to-be a very good idea, the climate change at MS that allows this to happen is a very welcome thaw. Keep that up and the world will improve significantly.

    Since we already today can use the best part of AD, its Kerberos V service, to support GSSAPI for SSH logins between our Unices, I expect to be able to get a Kerberos ticket from the AD KDC, and use GSSAPI to authenticate both server and client, ie. GSSAPI-Key Exchange (no more SSH host keys and idiots typing yes) and then delegate the credentials so I can access things authenticated without giving the server host my password.

  22. nwgat.ninja says:

    why this has taken decades is anyone's guess but this seem awesome, being able to security ssh into a windows server will surely help everyone

  23. Christiaan Rakowski says:

    Awesome news!

    Like many others here, I too hope you will include scp support.

  24. Voice of Reason says:

    Finally Microsoft has made it to the 1990's – about time.

  25. jdhardy says:

    The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is today.

  26. firebug says:

    Wouldn't it be nessesarry to implement "cp" right, before building "scp"? My Windows 10 machine just took 40 minutes saying: "copying files" on an SSD during an update.

  27. firebug says:

    Wouldn't it be nessesarry to implement "cp" right, before building "scp"? My Windows 10 machine just took 40 minutes saying: "copying files" on an SSD during an update.

  28. stefscherer says:

    Great news!

    I tried to use docker + docker-machine or Vagrant on a fresh Windows box in the last days and run into problems of a missing SSH client. Which to choose, the nasty cygdrive path warnings…

    All problems will disappear with your approach!

  29. Anton says:

    Woohoo – no more cygwin!

    Lots of great feature requests coming in, but I'm happy for remote execution of scripts (either powershell or python) on Windows from a Linux machine. As well as scp/sftp and port forwarding too.

    Not really something for the Powershell team though (more the Windows team I'd guess), but I'd also love to be able to use rsync between Windows and Linux machines without installing cygwin.

  30. Richard Steck says:

    Long ago MSCE that has used very little of it since 2001. This is the kind of stuff that will bring me back, nice work.

  31. > Maybe another 20 years to get native SSHd running on the Windows platform?  

    What Angel said was:

    "A popular request the PowerShell team has received is to use Secure Shell protocol and Shell session (aka SSH) to interoperate between Windows and Linux – both Linux connecting to and managing Windows via SSH and, vice versa, Windows connecting to and managing Linux via SSH. "

    That means both client and server.

    Jeffrey Snover [MSFT]

  32. Double says:

    How to copy file to windows drive D: ?

    scp user@host.net:/data/file user@windows.is:/d:/broke/

  33. > Finally Microsoft has made it to the 1990's – about time.

    While doing PowerShell, I used to joke that my job was to lead MSFT into the 1970's.  

    Sounds like I'm exceeding expectations!  

    Mention that to Satya the next time you have coffee with him.  πŸ™‚

    Jeffrey Snover [MSFT]

  34. drive letters says:

    I hope windows use mount points like unix/linux system and NOT drive letters like C: D: X:  etc

  35. cmaxo says:

    This sounds fantastic. I'd like to put a plug in for supporting 256 colors in your support of ssh.

  36. bennettp123 says:

    Better late than never. πŸ™‚

    This is fantastic news, but the real surprise is the contribution to OpenSSH. Here's hoping it's included as a standard Windows feature: I'd much rather use scp/sftp than robocopy, the syntax is much nicer.

    I'm also looking forward to ssh support in TFS. πŸ™‚

  37. When I have to use Windows... says:

    This is one of my most missed tools that is readily available under Linux. Thank you!

  38. Ugh says:

    As Microsoft has shifted towards a more customer-oriented culture.  Really…. you are going to start your blog post with an incomplete sentence.

  39. someguy says:

    great stuff.  haters should chill & stfu, or go build your own OS ?

  40. Max says:

    I realize you're just the PowerShell team and you have no ability to control filesystems, but SSHFS support would be great. If you implement an SSH server, a Linux client should be able to SSHFS mount a remote Windows filesystem, but it might be nice to go the other way as well.

  41. Terry P says:

    You just made me a very happy person.

  42. jcollin says:

    I wish Windows would be strict POSIX compliance.

    The only and highest wall between "Mac, Linux, scientists and CS graduates world" and the "Windows world" must be that "Windows is not *NIX, so I will completely ignore it".

  43. aligature says:

    Fantastic! I've been wishing for this for a long time.

  44. Dustin L. Howett says:

    The first awesome feature that comes to mind is the ability to send/receive PowerShell objects over the wire. This can probably be done with an extension to the OpenSSL protocol (as it is pluggable and negotiable!).

    Wouldn't that be neat?

  45. Alun Jones says:

    Can't wait for the API for SSH client and server interactions to be made available to the average programmer.

  46. Glenn Faustino says:

    I used OpenBSD and PowerShell on a daily basis, this is a great news! I hope they will make a donation to OpenBSD or OpenSSH πŸ™‚

  47. Jason Fossen says:

    Congratulations to the PowerShell team and thank you Satya Nadella!  This is more important as a political statement than as a technical addition to PowerShell, but it will help to increase PowerShell awareness and adoption, it will improve Microsoft's image inside and outside the FOSS community, it goes very well with Nadella's drive for cross-platform compatibility and the New Microsoft branding, and, along with WS-MAN, it should attract more third-party vendors to PowerShell for the management of their products, such as networking gear.  Very nice!   πŸ™‚      

  48. Glenn Faustino says:

    My main desktop is powered by OpenBSD, so this news makes me excited!

  49. Terry says:

    Remember to build a native rsync so that people can do rsync over SSH ;-D

    Now the only option is Cygwin, not even GoW

  50. Nate McMaster says:

    yes! This has been desperately needed for a long time. I'm glad to see this will be coming soon.

  51. Tim says:

    Welcome to the field guys, it's taken a while but all I can say is welcome back πŸ™‚

  52. Acrosync says:

    @Anton @Terry  we already built a native rsync for Windows:


  53. Mark says:

    Great news for windows. A much needed feature for a well rounded server platform. Should have been done years ago. Better now then never.

  54. Ramon J. Long III says:

    The amount of trolling never ceases to amaze me.  Microsoft is under new leadership that is more welcoming of *nix and open source.  Instead of acting like bratty spoiled children, we should be relieved that some much needed changes are occurring within Microsoft's executive and engineering cultures.

  55. MichaelCramer says:

    @Dustin L Howett

    That's already done with current Powershell. WinRM is Microsoft's implementation of WS-Man, which is a SOAP protocol that transfers object data. This currently uses HTTP/HTTPS as its transport mechanism. This isn't too far different from the way developers use REST/JSON.

    In theory, you could transfer SOAP over SSH with some extensions to the SSH channel numbers. In practice, though, doing that would require a retooling of SSH clients to support that functionality. Perhaps Powershell could leverage this extension internally until the other SSH clients caught up? Not sure…

  56. ANeckbeard says:

    I love all the unkempt neckbeards tittering about it being long delayed.

    I've never really missed it and I use Windows and Linux on a daily basis.

    I guess a first class .net ssh client stack would be nice.

  57. Darg Dingleton says:

    It's great to see after years of being oppressive Nazi a-holes about Open source you guys are pitching in!

  58. Gary L Jackson says:

    This is great news! Looking forward to it!

  59. Jamie Bilinski says:

    Based on a comment Mr Snover made once, I suspect Microsoft would have done this years ago if they felt it was safe to use open, or rather "public" source code without a private entity suddenly claiming rights. Even with the blessings of openssh and the IETF standard there's bound to be a troll out there looking to break the $1.5 billion record settlement Microsoft paid for using the MP3 codec.

    Maybe SSH will never be packaged with the OS. — but who cares, Microsoft has also given us Get-Module and Get-Package. πŸ™‚

  60. Great news says:

    Thank you for making windows a bit more like linux.

  61. CSRedRat says:

    When SSH server by default?

  62. Karthik says:

    Will remote command execution (for Build Slaves etc.) work just as intended on SSH?

    Also – is there a possibility Windows allows a COMMAND alternative? Bash or something else?

  63. Johann Dirry says:

    I've tried Posh-SSH, but found the session management cumbersome.

    It should be possible to create a session, save it in an disposable object, use it, and then simply close/dispose it, rather than using SessionId's:  

    [SshSession]$session = New-SSHSession …

    Otherwise I'm pretty happy with it.

  64. Marsanyi says:

    Great!  Thanks for hearing and acting on the requests.  Looking forward to using the result.

  65. Johann Dirry says:

    Would also like to have a .NET version of Git built into the Management Tools too. They could leverage the new SSH suite for file transfer.

  66. George says:

    You want us, linux guys to work in powershell and love windows for that? no way. that's why we call it "powers hell". It takes too much time and results are very poor – it's better to concentrate on other things, especially if you are newbie.

  67. trukhinyuri says:

    we need ssh server in windows! cool

  68. paczor says:

    So, simple idea took you almost 15 years?

  69. Fredrik says:

    Stop griming about how this should have been done 20 years ago. This is great news and in line with the new Microsoft. As a Linux admin this makes me happy.

  70. trukhinyuri says:

    Need complete Unix tool set, embedded in windows. sh, rsync, scp etc.

  71. sirius says:

    Need complete Unix tool set, embedded in windows. sh, rsync, scp etc.

  72. Sergei says:

    I often use RSYNC and SCP tools to transfer files between servers. Is there any chance that RSYNC and SCP will be implemented as a native tools for Windows which might be used over Windows SSH?

  73. Mike says:

    Yes, if Microsoft supports a shell on par with Linux's bash, I'd be more inclined to use Windows for everything.

  74. Christian says:

    I like the approach. But what I still miss is a more pleasant terminal application with easy copy&paste, tabs and so on. Take a look at the Gnome Terminal or cmder for Windows for example .

  75. bviktor says:

    For the crybabies whining about this being 20 years behind of Linux, yeah, cool, Linux had SSH, and Windows didn't. Except Windows OTOH had RDP and also MMC (and several other remote management stuff). This is just an n-th addition to the mix.

    Does Linux support MMC? No? Is it 20 years behind then? Nope. Come back to your senses guys.

  76. Abe Diaz says:

    Perseverance always wins.

  77. bviktor says:

    Also nevermind the fact that this is only about the BUILTIN support. 3rd parties have been supporting this since ~forever.

  78. Bill says:

    There is one feature I would LOVE to see as part of this. In KDE you can do sftp://server to mount a remote server using sftp. Then you can drag and drop or open files for local usage. I would love to see microsoft support this idea also. I realize that KDE has it integrated into all file IO so you can use that from any application in KDE to open and save files but for windows I would be happy if it could at least do it from Explorer.

  79. Swiss Dude says:

    This are great news. Thanks for your effort!

  80. Mathu Mou says:

    I think about to start to work with Windows now.

  81. Markus says:

    This sounds too nice to be true.

    But I have concern: How do you want to handle locale differences? eg UTF-8 is pretty well standard on /all/ linux systems.


  82. Why Microsoft just doesn't sell UNIX (i.e. XENIX) says:

    All the upcoming features included since years or even decades. With a working shell and terminal and not that bloated " object-based" Power Shell stuff.

    What comes next? Following ISO-Standards instead fighting them and try to stay imcompatible?


    Just add Zeroconf? Oh wait! Easy file sharing and chat would kill Skype?

  83. Neil says:

    Sounds good.

    Here is freeware for your reference  http://www.powershellserver.com

  84. Lukas says:

    So – Windows slightly changing towards the Linux world, and that's the right direction. Need for ssh and other typical *x apps will finally change the entire OS. And this is a good point to start the discussion about a need and usability of OS which forces admins to 'click' options instead of changing simple config files.

  85. Cirrus32 says:

    A company called NoMachine made a Win32 port of OpenSSH a long time ago.


    Perhaps Microsoft could look in that.

  86. Richard says:

    Great news. When will you buy Tobias Weltner's ISESteroids and integrate it directly? THAT would be a vast improvement.

  87. Jay says:

    This would be so great. Imagine how much more productive the world could be πŸ™‚

  88. Fariaz says:

    Good to hear that ,  but in my opinion having  the others daemons like opensshd server ,rsync would be so cool.(maybe a wrapper for winrm or some sort to act like it)

  89. Ali says:

    Microsoft, I used to hate you but I've started to love you.

  90. MariusCC says:


    Usual @MS, too little, too late: 20 years late to the party.

  91. denis bider says:

    Why the decision to use OpenSSH?

    Are you guys aware of Bitvise SSH Server and Client? Arguably the best SSH client and server for Windows for 15 years. The next SSH Client version will include a .NET interface usable from PowerShell. Our code is mature and solid, and our security track record is one of the best – arguably better than alternatives.

    We're really not sure why you would go with OpenSSH. You have your work cut out for you…

  92. MichaelCramer says:

    @Why Microsoft just doesn't sell UNIX (i.e. XENIX)

    Actually, WinRM (coupled with Powershell) is an implementation of an ISO Standard, http://www.iso.org/…/catalogue_detail.htm

    So Powershell Remote Management is using a fully ISO standard protocol, while SSH is not…

  93. HidekiAI says:

    Knowing PowerShell to be more object oriented, I'd assume it will be accessible as a library for. NET/mono for us to access as a library (is it a wrapper to libssh?) thus all programmers can start writing tools (I.e. deployment tools or MSI CustomAction) to SCP to *nix hosts, correct?

    Some Linux distro separates ssh-server and ssh-client, would that be the case here too or will we be able to expect sshd to be part of the package?  If so, will there be pam_ssh like ways to bridge the login to AD domain?

    While I'm at it, can you please allow port-forwarding on sshd_config as well as port forwarding on client (-d, -l, etc) to make it useful for other usage patterns of ssh?

  94. Sebastian Rother says:

    This are good news but except of some facts (Donations [Money/Hardware] / Code) it's just an Announcement.

  95. Sergey says:

    Does it mean Windows becomes multiuser system (not a single user for the client OS and only two users for the server OS)?

    Will Microsoft license each SSH connection?

  96. Erik Martino says:

    Now we need a full posix like environment that supports fork and removal of open files and it will actually be pretty cool.

  97. Knut J Bjuland says:

    What about also using bash and allow the use of / instead og as file seperator.

  98. kpsu says:

    Finally! SSH and SCP/SFTP is what I missed most while working with Powershell. Specifically, lack of a simple, secure, file transfer was a major drawback. BITS is overkill and too hard to work with for simple things, SMB is not the way to go for specific file transfers, and frowned upon by the security team. Hacks involving the web services protocol were too inefficient and prone to problems.

    Looking forward to this!

  99. Ron Klimaszewski says:

    What's with this 20 years nonsense?  The RFC for SSH is dated January 2006.

    Twenty years ago we were still using telnet and rsh (if not just TTY devices).  There is an rshd available in the oft-forgotten SFU for 15 years. (en.wikipedia.org/…/Windows_Services_for_UNIX)

    Managing Linux VMs/Hadoop in Azure was probably key to approve this initiative.  And now that SFU is deprecated as of W2012 (missed that one) probably helped.  

    Interestingly, Microsoft's recommended replacement for SFU:

    "The Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications (SUA) is deprecated. If you use the SUA POSIX subsystem with this release, use Hyper-V to virtualize the server. If you use the tools provided by SUA, switch to Cygwin's POSIX emulation, or use either mingw-w64 (available from Sourceforge.net) or MinGW (available from MinGW.org) for doing a native port."


  100. Johnny Bravo says:

    Why would anyone trust that this will be done right? Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on you

  101. Stephen L. De Rudder says:

    This is great!

    Please try to make this an out-of-the-box feature (even if it is disabled by default). Please try not to make customers download this feature to get it. Please try to make this a first class feature of PowerShell instead of add-on semi-supported (even if semi-supported by Microsoft) feature. Our customers aren't going to want to have to install some semi-supported add-on (even if semi-supported by Microsoft) and many don't like to have to download fully supported add-ons (using Turn Windows Features on or off would work for them (gov sites, btw)).

    Please try to support certificates for login as well as username/password.

    Thank you for doing this (even if you can't do any of my requests).

  102. Noah Pugsley says:

    Great news Angel. I hope you'll work directly with the openssh team whenever possible to get any valuable changes you make upstream. Come say hi on the mailing list. The BSD community welcomes you, after all:

    β€œLinux people do what they do because they hate Microsoft. We do what we do because we love Unix.”

    ―Theo de Raadt

  103. CptWeasel says:

    This is huge and long over due.  It would also be nice to see if some common features of Linux/Mac were also included like dynamic console window size and ctrl +/- to increase text size.  

  104. Florian says:

    Hi, this is very good news!

    Is there any chance to port PowerShell to Linux, too? Now, that .NET is coming natively to Linux, perhaps it is technically possible? I like PowerShell and I think it is superior to bash, csh, ash, zsh, ….

  105. PowerShell ShowerJel says:

    Any plans to get rid of PowerShell and port bash into Windows? CMONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

  106. Robert Dinse says:

        A secure way of getting to an insecure operating system.  Hmm..  Hope that doesn't mean an NSA back door is coming to openssh.

  107. Henrik says:

    Im looking forward for this, it will certainly help me. I wish the team good luck and hope they also sponsor OpenSSH with a bag of cash.

  108. Wizfor says:

    Powershell sucks so much. Cygwin bash is way better. en.wikipedia.org/…/POSIX all the way. why do you keep shoving this crap down our throats. POWERSHELL SUCKS. BATCH SUCKS

  109. Hany Hammad says:

    I think that could lead to a thin PS client

  110. Chris says:

    The day I would use PS to log in using SSH to linux boxes will be the day I will drink bottle of vodka in less then an hour – let's celebrate!

  111. Adam E. J. Clarke says:

    This is great news. One of my biggest gripes with PowerShell was the lack of SSH support. I'm quite happy with the progress the team has been making with PowerShell and this will only improve things more.

    Coming from a more of a Linux background and having used BASH for many years it's nice to see PowerShell picking up things that make BASH and other *NIX shells really good.

    I also hope that means we'll no longer see the pretty annoying and somewhat tedious (especially when explaining to someone who hasn't used PowerShell) use of credssp.

  112. Patrick2015 says:

    This is a great news.

  113. ShaneJP says:

    I don't understand the negativity here.  Can't change the past and you gain nothing by grumbling about it.  But you can learn from the past and look to the future.  This is fantastic news!

  114. Ram says:

    Its Good, but after purchasing Windows license then using OpenSSH….hmm pretty sick ah πŸ˜›

  115. Heddon R. says:

    @Cirrus32, yes, original link was broken, the port is now available here: http://www.nomachine.com/NoMachine-OSS-ports

  116. Johan Akerstrom says:

    Great for integration between Un*x and Windows.

    Not really needed in pure Windows environments, WS-Management is doing a good job there already.

    @kpsu, PS 5.0 inludes a file copy option to and from PSSessions.

    @Erik Martino, for sure better handling around open files would be great. Would not expect it though.

  117. Chris29 says:

    Oh No,

    we have so much pain with openxxx software and thousands of Vulnerabilities.

    OpenSSH and OpenSSL is the biggest pain ever, after month of no reaction for bugs "special" packages for the  each software products are needed. The Source Code is extremely buggy, with a lot of source codes from hobby programmers. When Microsoft  so that,  we can schedule daily patch day's for the whole openxxx software.

    Please learn from Heartbleed,Poodle, SSL Bug(disable SSL), etc.

    And please implement a switch to remove openxxx software completely from power shell from beginning.

  118. jasonk says:

    Here is hoping for a high-fidelity implementation, that works with all Windows console applications. PowerShell ISE and remoting currently have difficulty handling the I/O (for me, most troublesome with the input side) of programs started from PowerShell that are not cmdlets.

    Although Windows lacks pseudo-TTYs (ptys), I'm led to believe that the console drivers may be capable of more than is obvious/documented. The reason I think this is that there is a VTNT telnet terminal type documented as "use the VTNT terminal type if you are running advanced command-line applications". (windows.microsoft.com/…/telnet-commands) IIRC, this supported redirection features that preserved color and even mouse input in the Telnet Server component in the past.

    Hopefully the OpenSSH Server is a full remote console, not just a PowerShell frontend. And maybe the low level hook/redirection APIs could be improved and/or documented, perhaps to the point that PowerShell ISE and remoting features can take advantage as well to improve support for running all console applications from within PowerShell.

  119. ac says:

    So, since we're talking interoperability with weird but nevertheless occasionally quite useful protocols, any chance Windows could also support FTP over SSL out of the box?

  120. itx says:

    This is wonderful news!

    Kudos to Microsoft for taking a big step in the right direction

  121. ShaneJP says:

    @Chris29  Chris, OpenSSH is developed by the OpenBSD project.  OpenSSL is a completely separate project with completely separate developers!  All the pain recently around OpenSSL is not in any way the responsibility of the people behind OpenBSD and OpenSSH.  Completely different people!

    Blaming the OpenBSD/OpenSSH developers for OpenSSL bugs, is no different to blaming Microsoft for Apple bugs.

    You can't lump these projects together just because they share the OpenXXX naming.  The OpenBSD and OpenSSH code is very high quality.  In fact, the OpenBSD project have taken it upon themselves to fix the disaster that is OpenSSL, by forking it into a new project they have named LibreSSL.

    Also note that poor implementations of OpenSSH Portable in other projects, are also not the responsibility of the OpenBSD and OpenSSH developers.  They can't stop other people from shooting themselves in the foot by doing something silly.

    The OpenBSD/OpenSSH developers are famous for their code security, quality, stability and excellent reaction time to fixing bugs.

  122. x says:

    Given Microsoft's past attitudes of embrace, extend, extinguish, I'm a little skeptical about this move. However, given the recent directions Microsoft has taken, I think this may be a genuine change.

  123. Sachaz says:

    Microsoft support for Bash should be the next step !

  124. singerbj says:

    when is this going to happen? weeks? months? years?