1994-03-02 - low-overhead encrypted telnet

Header Data

From: hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: a8c9341794c762f0f206348e868dcc156ccee785dfc76b65dce97ddd0027a130
Message ID: <9403021619.AA10508@ah.com>
Reply To: <199403021514.KAA03435@duke.bwh.harvard.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1994-03-02 16:27:23 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 2 Mar 94 08:27:23 PST

Raw message

From: hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 94 08:27:23 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: low-overhead encrypted telnet
In-Reply-To: <199403021514.KAA03435@duke.bwh.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <9403021619.AA10508@ah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

>	   I don't, but I would question the wisdom of putting lots of
>effort into a telnet encryption scheme.  I would think it would be
>much more productive to build an encryption scheme at the network

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.

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