> > Thats your point of view, I have mine. > > And i respect yours, so respect mine. > > I'm sorry but i totally disagree. This is not something which one can > argue one's way past. Telnet over ssl as a solution to network security > is so much more inferior to SSH, and in fact, does not even merit one's > curiosity and time to explore.
Btw, i never point out that telnet over ssl is inferior or even a clone and i never said a solution for network security.. which you are bragging about. And i dont have a problem with that. Opinion mo yan. (w/c part?: respecting one's view on a certain field. :) - Louie ----- Original Message ----- From: "ian sison (mailing list)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Philippine Linux Users Group Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 8:40 AM Subject: Re: [plug] Telnet Problem > On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Louie Miranda wrote: > > > > And my point is why even bother? When every modern linux distribution > > > comes with SSH. > > > > Again, its not for you. Its for those who want to try it for curiousity > > sake. Im not suggesting it you use it. Only for those who want to! > > > > > When SSH has so much more security features than plain > > > telnet over ssl? > > > > Comment lang kta dito.. "plain telnet over ssl" its not plain anymore when > > you put it over in the "secure socket layer" the traffic becomes more secure > > by encrypting it using SSL. Your passwords and the data you send will not go > > in cleartext over the line. > > This is only one aspect about security of remote shell logins that telnet > over ssl solves. > > > Its simple, its like https. Or pop3 over ssl, stunnel. > > Quoting: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/debian-user-200305/msg03935.html > > SSH was not created as a clone of the spop3 or stunnel or https. It also > attempts to solve other problems aside from the above. > > > And this is your point. "Basically that is what ssh/d is designed for. So > > why use it?" > > My Answer, its not for you. Its for those who are interested to gain more > > experience rather than using those default packages. > > This is like saying "if you are interested, you can try this new security > tool. It's called a hook and eye. It will keep your door shut and seems > to do a good job of it. Try and experience it, and by the way it's an > alternative to that thing called a dead-bolt which by the way, you also > already have. > > > Whereas telnet over SSL is a workaround to make telnet act more like SSH. > > SSH attempts to solve a lot more problems associated with remote shell > sessions than simple encryption of the data passing through the transport > medium. > > > Thats your point of view, I have mine. > > And i respect yours, so respect mine. > > I'm sorry but i totally disagree. This is not something which one can > argue one's way past. Telnet over ssl as a solution to network security > is so much more inferior to SSH, and in fact, does not even merit one's > curiosity and time to explore. > > -- > Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) > Official Website: http://plug.linux.org.ph > Searchable Archives: http://marc.free.net.ph > . > To leave, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/plug > . > Are you a Linux newbie? To join the newbie list, go to > http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/ph-linux-newbie -- Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Official Website: http://plug.linux.org.ph Searchable Archives: http://marc.free.net.ph . To leave, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/plug . Are you a Linux newbie? To join the newbie list, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/ph-linux-newbie
