> I think the problem is, TUBES really is taking control of port 23. One > of the procedures to setup TUBES telnet, is to take (comment) out the > PORT 23 statement from PROFILE TCPIP. So, there is no way of letting > TCPIP know that port 23 is a SECURE port. I think the fact that Macro4 > says secure telnet IS NOT supported, indicates secure telnet will not > work.
That's odd. Since port 23 is less than 1024 (ie, in the "privileged" range), you should have to list the virtual machine that is authorized to use the port in PROFILE TCPIP. The place you do that is in the PORT statement, which is exactly where you'd put the SECURE item. Unless they're putting the TUBES virtual machine in the OBEYFILE list (ewww)? The trivial test would be to put in a PORT statement for the TUBES virtual machine on port 23 with the SECURE option and see if it works. Eg, something like: 23 TUBES SECURE xxxxxx I'd bet it will work. I can see them making the statement that it wouldn't be supported for outgoing sessions, but I can't see how the application binding the socket on incoming ever would know. If you have a test stack and a test TUBES machine, it'd be worth trying it. > Macro 4 indicated it does not plan to add support for secure telnet in > the future! Whatever happened to supporting the customer anyway! If > TUBES cannot grow with the needs of the customer, I think we will > eventually need to move away from TUBES. Sounds more like "we don't want to test it and then have to document it".
