1994-03-02 - Re: low-overhead encrypted telnet

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <pmetzger@lehman.com>
To: hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)
Message Hash: 686410f3554b3f6d8c439a2992fb6c70d44f0bc40420e4d47694f6b17a9de5d3
Message ID: <9403021632.AA21725@andria.lehman.com>
Reply To: <9403021619.AA10508@ah.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-03-02 16:33:01 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 2 Mar 94 08:33:01 PST

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger@lehman.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 94 08:33:01 PST
To: hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)
Subject: Re: low-overhead encrypted telnet
In-Reply-To: <9403021619.AA10508@ah.com>
Message-ID: <9403021632.AA21725@andria.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Eric Hughes says:
> The reason that encrypted telnet is a good thing is that modification
> at the network level requires kernel modification, and encrypting a
> telnet does not.  Installing an encrypted telnet daemon does require
> sysadmin cooperation, but it doesn't mean recompiling the kernel.

Although running an encrypted IP stack does require sysadmin
cooperation, it does not require a kernel rebuild -- John Ioannidis
has built modloadable versions of most of the swIPe software.

> As such, encrypted telnet is a good intermediate while the long term
> solution of encrypted IP gets developed and deployed.

Agreed -- sadly its arriving VERY slowly. 4.4BSD Lite comes with a
standards-compliant encrypted telnet implementation, however.