OpenSSH/OpenSSL is too big... any alternatives?

OpenSSH/OpenSSL is too big... any alternatives?

[Gonzalo Servat]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 345 bytes --]

Hi All

I have a 2MiB DiskOnChip. After installing the kernel, BusyBox, iptables
and a couple of libs from uClibc I only have 400k left of space.
OpenSSH needs to link to OpenSSL and OpenSSL is well over 1MB on it's
own. Is there any alternatives to OpenSSL/OpenSSH that will fit on 400k?

Thanks in advance!

Regards,

Gonzalo.



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: OpenSSH/OpenSSL is too big... any alternatives?

[cfowler]

I got the same problem but I'm running off floppy.


On Tue, 2002-06-25 at 10:09, Gonzalo Servat wrote:
> Hi All
> 
> I have a 2MiB DiskOnChip. After installing the kernel, BusyBox, iptables
> and a couple of libs from uClibc I only have 400k left of space.
> OpenSSH needs to link to OpenSSL and OpenSSL is well over 1MB on it's
> own. Is there any alternatives to OpenSSL/OpenSSH that will fit on 400k?
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Gonzalo.
> 
> 

Re: OpenSSH/OpenSSL is too big... any alternatives?

[Paul Jimenez]

You might look at LSH, a smaller implementation, linked to off
of the uclibc page ( http://www.uclibc.org/uClibc-apps.html )
as being http://www.net.lut.ac.uk/psst/ .  No guarantees that it works..
it looks to be SSH v2 protocol, but not updated very recently.
My only connection with it is remembering that it existed on the above
uclibc page :)  Have fun,

  --pj

On Tuesday, Jun 25, 2002, cfowler writes:
>I got the same problem but I'm running off floppy.
>
>
>On Tue, 2002-06-25 at 10:09, Gonzalo Servat wrote:
>> Hi All
>> 
>> I have a 2MiB DiskOnChip. After installing the kernel, BusyBox, iptables
>> and a couple of libs from uClibc I only have 400k left of space.
>> OpenSSH needs to link to OpenSSL and OpenSSL is well over 1MB on it's
>> own. Is there any alternatives to OpenSSL/OpenSSH that will fit on 400k?
>> 
>> Thanks in advance!
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Gonzalo.
>> 
>> 
>
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Linux MTD discussion mailing list
>http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
>

Re: OpenSSH/OpenSSL is too big... any alternatives?

[Gonzalo Servat]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1737 bytes --]

I did have a look at LSH but I had other problems getting it to work so
I gave up on that one too :)

Now I'm down to using netkit
(ftp.uk.linux.org/pub/linux/Networking/netkit) but getting it to compile
vs uClibc is tricky. I still get errors to do with 'rpc'. I've decided
to just use telnet for the time being (until I can get a bigger DOC) but
even this task is looking doubtful :(

Has anyone had any success compiling netkit (inetd & telnet server)
against uClibc?

Thanks in advance!

Regards,
Gonzalo

On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 00:50, Paul Jimenez wrote:
> 
> You might look at LSH, a smaller implementation, linked to off
> of the uclibc page ( http://www.uclibc.org/uClibc-apps.html )
> as being http://www.net.lut.ac.uk/psst/ .  No guarantees that it works..
> it looks to be SSH v2 protocol, but not updated very recently.
> My only connection with it is remembering that it existed on the above
> uclibc page :)  Have fun,
> 
>   --pj
> 
> On Tuesday, Jun 25, 2002, cfowler writes:
> >I got the same problem but I'm running off floppy.
> >
> >
> >On Tue, 2002-06-25 at 10:09, Gonzalo Servat wrote:
> >> Hi All
> >> 
> >> I have a 2MiB DiskOnChip. After installing the kernel, BusyBox, iptables
> >> and a couple of libs from uClibc I only have 400k left of space.
> >> OpenSSH needs to link to OpenSSL and OpenSSL is well over 1MB on it's
> >> own. Is there any alternatives to OpenSSL/OpenSSH that will fit on 400k?
> >> 
> >> Thanks in advance!
> >> 
> >> Regards,
> >> 
> >> Gonzalo.
> >> 
> >> 
> >
> >
> >
> >______________________________________________________
> >Linux MTD discussion mailing list
> >http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
> >
> 


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: OpenSSH/OpenSSL is too big... any alternatives?

[Robert Schwebel]

On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 01:04:36AM +1000, Gonzalo Servat wrote:
> (ftp.uk.linux.org/pub/linux/Networking/netkit) but getting it to compile
> vs uClibc is tricky. I still get errors to do with 'rpc'. I've decided
> to just use telnet for the time being (until I can get a bigger DOC) but
> even this task is looking doubtful :(
> 
> Has anyone had any success compiling netkit (inetd & telnet server)
> against uClibc?

If telnet is enough for you you can use utelnetd

  http://www.pengutronix.de/software/utelnetd_en.html

For LSH I'll have a look - be a little bit patient, I'm hopelessly flooded
with other work right now, but it's definitely in the pipeline. 

Robert
-- 
 +--------------------------------------------------------+
 | Dipl.-Ing. Robert Schwebel | http://www.pengutronix.de |
 | Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry |
 |   Braunschweiger Str. 79,  31134 Hildesheim, Germany   |
 |    Phone: +49-5121-28619-0 |  Fax: +49-5121-28619-4    |
 +--------------------------------------------------------+

Re: OpenSSH/OpenSSL is too big... any alternatives?

[Russ Dill]

On Tue, 2002-06-25 at 07:09, Gonzalo Servat wrote:
> Hi All
> 
> I have a 2MiB DiskOnChip. After installing the kernel, BusyBox, iptables
> and a couple of libs from uClibc I only have 400k left of space.
> OpenSSH needs to link to OpenSSL and OpenSSL is well over 1MB on it's
> own. Is there any alternatives to OpenSSL/OpenSSH that will fit on 400k?

I have:
	uClibc
	busybox
	kernel
	dnrd
	iptables
	vtun
	thttpd
	utelnetd
	pppd+pppoe
	udhcp
	+ a bunch of other things I can't think of

it makes a 1.41M image, compile everything with uclibc, strip it
properly, and it works out