Comparison between PuTTY and F-Secure

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
Hash: SHA1

I have used PuTTY in a number of situations that require SSH access from
Windows systems, but not in a secure corporate environment. Our
corporate standard is F-Secure, and not PuTTY.

I was wondering if there have been any security, ease-of-use, or other
qualitative comparisons performed between PuTTY and F-Secure. How secure
is PuTTY as compared to F-Secure? How reliable?

Can anyone point me in the right direction?
- --

Lew Pitcher, IT Specialist, Corporate Technology Solutions,
Enterprise Technology Solutions, TD Bank Financial Group

(Opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's)
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


Re: Comparison between PuTTY and F-Secure


Quoted text here. Click to load it

PuTTY is free, I've been using it for years.  Simon Tathan only releases
PuTTY from his own site, for security.  While the setup dialogs are a
little clunky, the program works without fuss here on localnet as well
as being my 'window to the world' for many years while using a remote
account on an IRIX-64 box.

I cannot make the comparison you ask, I have no reason to seek a different
ssh client (ssh is built into linux terminal session) -- using PuTTY since
last century.

Memory fault -- brain fried

Re: Comparison between PuTTY and F-Secure

Grant wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Same here. Can't make a comparison because I've never used F-secure, but
I've been using PuTTY in a "secure corporate environment" for years.
Frankly, I trust the open source community more than the big
corporations. I'd be afraid they might have some back door into their
products especially since they tend to keep the source code secret.
To reply by email remove "_nospam"

Site Timeline