Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
> If by "secure" you mean "encrypted", there are alternatives. stelnet
> or telnet-ssl is one alternative, Kerberos telnet is another. The
> latter demands a bit more infrastructure, however...
ssh requires almost no effort on the administrator's part to use (like telnet) except
protecting one's passwords / keys.
> If you meant "strongly encrypted", stelnet or telnet-ssl stand their
> ground. When it comes to Kerberos telnet, I believe it depends on the
> implementation (since DES can't really be counted as strong any more,
> IMHO).
SSH also has the benefit of supporting several algorithms for encryption and
authentication (including Kerberos).
> ... and SSH has issues. They are possible to go around, but you have
> to be aware of them.
I have had no issues using OpenSSH at all.
I understand that there are other products, but SSH is the only one I've worked with
enough to consider secure and stable.
--
Michael T. Babcock (PGP: 0xBE6C1895)
http://www.fibrespeed.net/~mbabcock/
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
