Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 00:12:52 +0400 (MSD) From: =?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?= (Andrey A. Chernov) <ache@nagual.ru> To: mark@grondar.za (Mark Murray) Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Secure telnet duplicating: secure & eBones both... Message-ID: <199608202012.AAA00660@nagual.ru> In-Reply-To: <199608201543.RAA26357@grumble.grondar.za> from "Mark Murray" at "Aug 20, 96 05:43:19 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Contrary to what you may think you see in the makefiles, The only form > of secure telnet we have right now is Kerberised Telnet. Set some of > those macros and see how far you get. > > Right now there is RSA and SPX, Neither of which work and neither of > which are particularly standard (I speak under correction) as telnet > authenticators/encryptors. I am aware that only Kerberos part is working now. But, 1) What we plan to do when other parts will works in future versions, move it back? (it was my question from my first message, unanswered) 2) It can be build without Kerberos, encryption parts not active in this case. But at least encryption protocol negotiation still works. And yet one my question, unanswered in all messages: what are the reasons to move it? As I guess, your logic is: if only Kerberos part works, move it to eBones. In this case see my (1). I.e. I see _no_ harm leaving it in secure and see (1) harm to moving it to eBones. -- Andrey A. Chernov <ache@nagual.ru> http://www.nagual.ru/~ache/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199608202012.AAA00660>