On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 05:30:36PM -0700, John Nemeth wrote: > } I would say that doesn't really fit with what we want either, certainly > } without somebody really trying. It breaks the rule that using ssh can > } count on confidentiality and integrity and makes systems with ssh as a > } component harder to reason about. > > I would say it is something that should be available as an > option (likely a command line option). ssh/scp has pretty much > completely replaced rsh/rcp (other than for people that go out of > their way to use those); however, there are many things that get > copied around that are completely public where encrypting them for > data transfer is useless overhead. That said you likely still want > passwords encrypted and integrity checks.
(1) having an unencrypted option at all is one of the ways spooks like to weaken cryptosystems; it creates ways to force/cause people to use it when they didn't mean to. (2) if you don't encrypt everything, you're telling anyone who's listening which data's important. IOW, I disagree entirely. -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org