[Bug 2560] sshd: Description of hashed known_hosts file does not make sense and format is outdated

[bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla.mindrot.org]

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2560

--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelen <jjelen at redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Damien Miller from comment #1)
> >     Alternately, hostnames may be stored in a hashed form which hides
> >     host names and addresses should the file's contents be disclosed.
> 
> It's saying that if someone gets a hold ("be disclosed") of your
> known_hosts file then the host name/address will still have some
> privacy. AFAIK it's grammatical, but I'm open to a better wording.

I am not native, so finally I checked in the dictionary, and there is
really such a meaning, but it is the first time I saw word "should" in
meaning of "in case"/"if". I got the idea about the meaning, but IMHO
language of manual pages does not have to be super-fancy, but rather
simple if we want people to read them. Proposal:

    Alternately, hostnames may be stored in a hashed form which hides
    host names and addresses in case of the file's contents disclosure.

> -hostnames, bits, exponent, modulus, comment.
> +hostnames, key type, key content (base-64 encoded), comment.

I am fine with that. I based my proposal on the same format description
in authorized_keys section:

    Protocol 2 public key consist of: options, keytype, base64-encoded
key, comment. 

Your sounds better, but it would be nice to have the format consistent
across manual pages (in the same words) not to confuse people more than
is necessary.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.
You are watching someone on the CC list of the bug.