I must admit that I wasn't following the thread that closely, and
internal security policy may dictate otherwise, but ssh should provide
sufficient protection. If the original poster is on the outside and
needs a connection to a mainframe, ssh to a intermediate host may be
enough. Once on the inside, it may be acceptable to be clear text.
Traffic to the remote user will always be encrypted.
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
In a recent note, Rich Smrcina said:
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 08:19:47 -0600
Although technically correct that Putty can not do 3270, if the original
poster can ssh into a Linux machine with the x3270 suite installed, they
can use c3270 to access their 3270 based hosts. c3270 is ncurses based
and should work over a standard telnet/ssh connection.
Does this not thwart any supposed security objective in the original
Putty requirement? Or is it presumed the Linux-mainframe connection
is secure (a fair bet if the "Linux machine" is an LPAR connected
via Hipersocket)? Or am I simply overlooking an ironic content in
your remark?
-- gil
--
Rich Smrcina
VM Assist, Inc.
Main: (262)392-2026
Cell: (414)491-6001
Ans Service: (360)715-2467
rich.smrcina at vmassist.com
Catch the WAVV! http://www.wavv.org
WAVV 2006 - Chattanooga, TN - April 7-11, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
