From: Jef Poskanzer <jef@ee.lbl.gov>
To: perry@imsi.com
Message Hash: 4f3f05c9b2d299d204602cfc620e0dc1961a3dff113c47a3bb13b3716bd6eb14
Message ID: <199409242002.NAA10352@hot.ee.lbl.gov>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-09-24 20:02:40 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 24 Sep 94 13:02:40 PDT
From: Jef Poskanzer <jef@ee.lbl.gov>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 94 13:02:40 PDT
To: perry@imsi.com
Subject: Re: kerberosV telnet
Message-ID: <199409242002.NAA10352@hot.ee.lbl.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Perry Metzger:
>Jef Poskanzer says:
>> "That turns out not to be the case." The version of CNS that we have
>> doesn't have any encryption beyond DES. 4.4BSD telnet is basically
>> identical to kerberosV telnet, and the only encryption it has is DES.
>
>The 4.4 telnet is NOT identical. Its much better code, has lots of
>neat new capabilities that you probably want, is more modular, and the
>versions I saw had hooks for D-H and the like, which is where most of
>the work is -- you can get the D-H code from RSAREF and steal the IDEA
>code from PGP; from there the changes are small.
I just did a diff -r between the Kerberos V telnet/telnetd/libtelnet
and the 4.4BSD version. From 1.5 MB of source code I get 40KB of diffs.
In my book a 2% difference qualifies as basically identical. Plus 90%
of the diffs were memcpy/bcopy changes.
I know there are nice hooks in the code for adding new encryption
and authentication modules. I know it would be relatively easy to
add IDEA and DH. That's why I'm asking whether anyone has already
done it. Do you get it this time, or should I go for four?
Perry, why don't you let someone else reply this time?
---
Jef
Return to September 1994
Return to ““Perry E. Metzger” <perry@imsi.com>”