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 machine. If someone isn't granted SSh access, then there's probably a good reason for that. I don't think it's our job to work around security restrictions in a particular machine or network.
The original message implied that this was a separate issue from file transfer. It's not just a matter of getting someone interested in developing it. I do contract work on TigerVNC, so it's potentially something I could look into, but we would all have to be on board with the idea in order for it to continue to be maintained. I don't even really understand the purpose of the proposed feature yet, except as a backdoor. On 5/28/10 3:34 PM, Paul Donohue wrote: > 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 an SSL > stream, which from a user's perspective appears to be similar functionality). > > The RFB protocol really wasn't designed to do this kind of thing ... RFB is > built around framebuffer updates, and it is assumed that very little data > other than framebuffer updates will be transfered. That's not to say that > you can't use RFB to encapsulate another network connection, but the > encapsulated traffic and framebuffer updates will be constantly fighting for > the connection, so latency will likely be high for both. > > However, I agree this would be a useful feature for those times when you > don't really care if it is a horribly ugly and inefficient hack as long as it > gets the job done (kinda like file transfer via RFB). > > But I don't know of anyone working on this functionality, so unless you are > interested in developing this yourself, I suspect you would have to pay > someone to implement this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Tigervnc-devel mailing list Tigervnc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tigervnc-devel
