|
@@ -66,9 +66,8 @@ Yes. SSH-1 support has always been available in PuTTY.
|
|
|
However, the SSH-1 protocol has many weaknesses and is no longer
|
|
|
considered secure; you should use SSH-2 instead if at all possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-\#{XXX-REVIEW-BEFORE-RELEASE:
|
|
|
As of 0.68, PuTTY will no longer fall back to SSH-1 if the server
|
|
|
-doesn't appear to support SSH-2; you must explicitly ask for SSH-1. }
|
|
|
+doesn't appear to support SSH-2; you must explicitly ask for SSH-1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
\S{faq-localecho}{Question} Does PuTTY support \i{local echo}?
|
|
|
|
|
@@ -167,7 +166,7 @@ the wrong solution and we will not do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you have host keys available in the common \i\c{known_hosts} format,
|
|
|
we have a script called
|
|
|
-\W{http://tartarus.org/~simon-git/gitweb/?p=putty.git;a=blob;f=contrib/kh2reg.py;hb=HEAD}\c{kh2reg.py}
|
|
|
+\W{https://git.tartarus.org/?p=simon/putty.git;a=blob;f=contrib/kh2reg.py;hb=HEAD}\c{kh2reg.py}
|
|
|
to convert them to a Windows .REG file, which can be installed ahead of
|
|
|
time by double-clicking or using \c{REGEDIT}.
|
|
|
|
|
@@ -213,16 +212,21 @@ seems to be working so far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
\S{faq-ports-general}{Question} What ports of PuTTY exist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Currently, release versions of PuTTY tools only run on full Win32
|
|
|
-systems and Unix. \q{\i{Win32}} includes versions of Windows from
|
|
|
-Windows 95 onwards (as opposed to the 16-bit Windows 3.1; see
|
|
|
-\k{faq-win31}), up to and including Windows 7; and we know of no
|
|
|
-reason why PuTTY should not continue to work on future versions
|
|
|
-of Windows.
|
|
|
+Currently, release versions of PuTTY tools only run on Windows
|
|
|
+systems and Unix.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+As of 0.68, the supplied PuTTY executables run on versions of
|
|
|
+Windows from XP onwards, up to and including Windows 10; and we
|
|
|
+know of no reason why PuTTY should not continue to work on
|
|
|
+future versions of Windows.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+The 32-bit Windows executables we provide for the \q{\i{x86}}
|
|
|
+processor architecture should also work fine on 64-bit processors
|
|
|
+that are backward-compatible with that architecture. The 64-bit
|
|
|
+executables will only work on 64-bit versions of Windows. They
|
|
|
+will run somewhat faster than 32-bit executables would on the
|
|
|
+same processor, but will consume slightly more memory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-The Windows executables we provide are for the 32-bit \q{\i{x86}}
|
|
|
-processor architecture, but they should work fine on 64-bit
|
|
|
-processors that are backward-compatible with that architecture.
|
|
|
(We used to also provide executables for Windows for the Alpha
|
|
|
processor, but stopped after 0.58 due to lack of interest.)
|
|
|
|
|
@@ -248,10 +252,9 @@ If you look at the source release, you should find a \c{unix}
|
|
|
subdirectory. There are a couple of ways of building it,
|
|
|
including the usual \c{configure}/\c{make}; see the file \c{README}
|
|
|
in the source distribution. This should build you Unix
|
|
|
-ports of Plink, PuTTY itself, PuTTYgen, PSCP, PSFTP, and also
|
|
|
+ports of Plink, PuTTY itself, PuTTYgen, PSCP, PSFTP, Pageant, and also
|
|
|
\i\c{pterm} - an \cw{xterm}-type program which supports the same
|
|
|
-terminal emulation as PuTTY. \#{XXX-REVIEW-BEFORE-RELEASE:}
|
|
|
-We do not yet have a Unix port of Pageant.
|
|
|
+terminal emulation as PuTTY.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't have \i{Gtk}, you should still be able to build the
|
|
|
command-line tools.
|
|
@@ -1045,7 +1048,7 @@ is triggered by PuTTY 0.58. This was fixed in 0.59. The
|
|
|
\W{http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/wishlist/xp-wont-run}{\q{xp-wont-run}}
|
|
|
entry in PuTTY's wishlist has more details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-\S{faq-system32}{Question} When I put PuTTY in
|
|
|
+\S{faq-system32}{Question} When I put 32-bit PuTTY in
|
|
|
\cw{C:\\WINDOWS\\\i{SYSTEM32}} on my \i{64-bit Windows} system,
|
|
|
\i{\q{Duplicate Session}} doesn't work.
|
|
|
|
|
@@ -1053,7 +1056,7 @@ The short answer is not to put the PuTTY executables in that location.
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 64-bit systems, \cw{C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSTEM32} is intended to contain
|
|
|
only 64-bit binaries; Windows' 32-bit binaries live in
|
|
|
-\cw{C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSWOW64}. When a 32-bit program such as PuTTY runs
|
|
|
+\cw{C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSWOW64}. When a 32-bit PuTTY executable runs
|
|
|
on a 64-bit system, it cannot by default see the \q{real}
|
|
|
\cw{C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSTEM32} at all, because the
|
|
|
\W{http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa384187(v=vs.85).aspx}{File
|
|
@@ -1083,15 +1086,21 @@ USB stick).
|
|
|
I \i{clean up} after it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
PuTTY will leave some Registry entries, and a random seed file, on
|
|
|
-the PC (see \k{faq-settings}). If you are using PuTTY on a public
|
|
|
-PC, or somebody else's PC, you might want to clean these up when you
|
|
|
-leave. You can do that automatically, by running the command
|
|
|
-\c{putty -cleanup}. (Note that this only removes settings for
|
|
|
-the currently logged-in user on \i{multi-user systems}.)
|
|
|
+the PC (see \k{faq-settings}). Windows 7 and up also remember some
|
|
|
+information about recently launched sessions for the \q{jump list}
|
|
|
+feature.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+If you are using PuTTY on a public PC, or somebody else's PC, you
|
|
|
+might want to clean this information up when you leave. You can do
|
|
|
+that automatically, by running the command \c{putty -cleanup}. See
|
|
|
+\k{using-cleanup} in the documentation for more detail. (Note that
|
|
|
+this only removes settings for the currently logged-in user on
|
|
|
+\i{multi-user systems}.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
If PuTTY was installed from the installer package, it will also
|
|
|
-appear in \q{Add/Remove Programs}. Older versions of the uninstaller
|
|
|
-do not remove the above-mentioned registry entries and file.
|
|
|
+appear in \q{Add/Remove Programs}. Current versions of the installer
|
|
|
+do not offer to remove the above-mentioned items, so if you want them
|
|
|
+removed you should run \c{putty -cleanup} before uninstalling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
\S{faq-dsa}{Question} How come PuTTY now supports \i{DSA}, when the
|
|
|
website used to say how insecure it was?
|