[Msurrow]

I’m calling it consultant speak because your response to an argument is to bring up something else, instead of actually responding.

The same with this last reply; you can keep throwing out new points all you want, but thats not going to make you correct in the original question.

Saying or implying that one software has a “principle” risk of vulnerabilities that another software doesn’t is plain and simply wrong.

And that has nothing to do with all the other stuff about layered defence, vpns, enterprise security, chatty protocols or whatever you want to pile on the discusion.

[rl3]

Your question was this:

>So what’s the difference in risk of ssh software vulns and other software vulns?

I proceeded to explain how large companies think about the issue and what their rationale is for not exposing SSH endpoints to the public internet. On the technical side, I compared SSH to WireGuard.

For that comparison, the chattiness of their respective protocols was directly relevant.

Likewise complexity: between two highly-audited pieces of software, the silent one that's vastly simpler tends to win from a security perspective.

All of those points seem highly relevant to your question.

>... but thats not going to make you correct in the original question.

If you can elucidate what I said that was incorrect, I'm all ears.

[Msurrow]

You are still implying that wireguard are somehow different from ssh in its suceptibilty to vulnerabilities existing or being introduced into its codebase. And it simply is not.

Edit: codebase of ssh/wireguard implementations, just to be clear