DRC wrote:
> Why reinvent the wheel? I don't see why it's our job to reproduce the
> functionality of SSH. Just use SSH.
Convenience is a good answer. Another answer is that VNC is used for
many things, and not all users that are allowed to access a system with
VNC is allowed ssh access.
> N
On 5/28/10 4:51 AM, Thomas Sondergaard wrote:
> DRC wrote:
>> Why reinvent the wheel? I don't see why it's our job to reproduce the
>> functionality of SSH. Just use SSH.
>
> Convenience is a good answer. Another answer is that VNC is used for
> many things, and not all users that are allowed t
On Fri, 28 May 2010, DRC wrote:
>
> Why aren't you? What functionality would creating our own SSh tunnel
> provide that embedded encryption of the RFB protocol wouldn't provide?
He said he wanted tcp port forwarding.
He's essentially looking for the ability to encapsulate packets from another
network connection in an RFB message, which doesn't really have anything to do
with encryption (I think the only reason ssh was mentioned is because ssh just
happens to have the ability to encapsulate network packets in
I guess I still don't understand why. "Convenience" seems like actually
the wrong answer here. RFB is not exactly a secure protocol, and I
don't think many SysAdmins would appreciate us opening up a big security
hole to let anyone forward whatever they want by simply getting VNC
access into the m
