Steve Szmidt wrote:
First of all, Kerberos comes with a telnet server which can be as secure as OpenSSH. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft starts using kerberized telnet as part of their SFU (last time I asked, they were concerned about licensing issues with OpenSSH and had no plans to include it).-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Friday 20 August 2004 06:02 am, Thomas Kuepper wrote:
use ssh instead of telnet. telnet is a bad idea.
And the reason telnet is a bad idea, is because it sends the password in clear text. Today there's no valid reason to use telnet over ssh.
So telnet might not be as dead as one might think. However, One must take care when using Kerberized telnet servers for important administration because they can be easily misconfigured not to encrypt the session or to fall back on plain text transfers.
Also, many binary distributions of openssh don't support kerberos, which makes kerberized telnet more scalable in many instances.
Best Wishes, Chris travers Metatron Technology Consulting
begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard
_______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
