[bubblesnort]

If it works, don't fix it.

[ranger_danger]

I don't think we should be telling people to keep using unsecure versions of ssh.

[pletnes]

It’s quite possible that security is handled by ssh such that sshfs isn’t exposed over the network. If sshfs can use newer ssh it might be just fine.

[opan]

I am curious how much stuff sshfs itself does and how much is just handled by ssh or fuse on your system. (am not a programmer, unfortunately, before someone says to read the code)

[nsteel]

An insecure version of secure shell doesn't "work".

[ranger_danger]

It's ok for people to have different definitions of things

[nsteel]

People also have different ideas of what "unmaintained" means. The earlier poster was likely highlighting the common misconception that software must be constantly changed in order to be considered maintained.

Personally, if something is called secure shell and it's not secure, then it's broken. Maybe I'm weird.

[ranger_danger]

The definition of maintained in indeed subjective, so I don't think it can even be called a misconception. People just disagree on what it means, but there can't be a single right or wrong answer.

Some people prefer secure software to be regularly updated and audited and won't trust other programs. I think it's a perfectly reasonable position, but I also know not everyone will think the same way.