On Tue, 1 May 2001, David Talkington wrote:
> >I have yet to see a real case made for using telnet over ssh.
>
> I don't disagree with you at all in principle, but you assume that the
> administrator controls the clients, which in the ISP business, isn't
> true. To provide public services, clear text is still unfortunately
> required. I've also heard frets from professors concerned that they
> won't be able to access their email at conventions, if the terminals
> provided are Windows and have only telnet. My solution? Give 'em a
> copy of PuTTY on a floppy disk. But there's a lot of painful
> diplomacy required. Even in a controlled environment, changing
> behavior and perceptions takes time.
Yes. I confess I have telnet running on a machine or two, mostly because
they are POS ancient commercial Unix boxes without compilers. (We could
buy compilers if we wanted to shell out a few thousand bucks. But we keep
hearing promises that the machines are going to be deprecated RSN.)
Getting people to switch from telnet to ssh is going to be more painful
than the switch from rsh to telnet was, mostly because telnet seems firmly
embedded in public consciousness, but I am stubbornly holding that it must
be done, and soon.
I like the idea of PuTTY on a floppy! We use Java SSH applets, which work
well for extreme cases where folk can't install software. Forcing remote
users to use ssh instead of telnet is especially important when they are
at conferences and conventions, which usually tend to be highly insecure
LANs. Having a VP of Marketing telnet in to get the latest, secret product
information at a sales convention populated with competitors (many of whom
are tech savvy) gives me shivers.
thornton
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
