On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Ian G <i...@iang.org> wrote: > The SSH-vs-telnet example was back in the mid-90s where there were two > alternatives: secure telnet and this new-fangled thing called SSH.
The way it for for everyone I knew that went through it was: 1. Sniffing was sort of a problem, but most people didn't care 2. Telnet was quite a bit of a pain, especially when using NAT, and wanting to do X11 forwarding 3. Typing in your password again and again over telnet (which did have advantages over rlogin/rsh) was a pain. Enter SSH. It solved #1, but the big boon to sysadmins to figure it out and installed it was that it *really* solved #2 and #3, hence major adoption. I know this wasn't the case for everyone to adopt it, some people did it purely for security reasons. That said, the major threat was the passive attacker, the person running a sniffer on some network. Against them SSH was incredibly effective. - Andy _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
