Re: Update on user-level hack to do telnet encryption posted recently

> OK folks, I've started tidying up that hack code I posted recently which
	> outlined a method for rolling your own telnet-style encryption.

	I really think this project is a serious mistake. People should, if
	they insist, produce software compatible with the draft RFCs on telnet
	encryption and authentication -- although such code has already been
	written. The notion of putting in all this effort just to avoid having
	to deal with your system administrator, especially when he should be
	happy to install such code given the recent rash of internet breakins,
	seems misplaced to me.

Perry, I'm no longer interested in what you have to say.  You've been
a wet blanket and have pooh-poohed every practical suggestion I've
ever seen anyone making - weren't you one of the first people to
post to the netphone project telling us we were all wasting our time?

Cypherpunks write code, except when asked not to by Perry Metzger.

The point of this code, in case you missed it, is so that people can
take responsibility for their own encryption and not have to trust
software installed by someone else, just like we all use pgp rather
than Clipper.

Now, if you don't have anything useful to contribute, shut up and stop
trying to discourage those who do.

G

Graham Toal says:
> 	I really think this project is a serious mistake. People should, if
> 	they insist, produce software compatible with the draft RFCs on telnet
> 	encryption and authentication -- although such code has already been
> 	written. The notion of putting in all this effort just to avoid having
> 	to deal with your system administrator, especially when he should be
> 	happy to install such code given the recent rash of internet breakins,
> 	seems misplaced to me.
> 
> Perry, I'm no longer interested in what you have to say.  You've been
> a wet blanket and have pooh-poohed every practical suggestion I've
> ever seen anyone making - weren't you one of the first people to
> post to the netphone project telling us we were all wasting our time?

No I was not.

As for this current "idea", with an implementation of an encrypted
STANDARD telnet already written and likely available soon for
anonymous FTP, I think I'm being sane, not "a wet blanket". You can
already get a version of the Cray telnet that implements the
authentication code and hack in a reimplementation of the encryption
code if you wish. See below for that. However, producing silly
non-standard telnet hacks makes little sense.

> Cypherpunks write code, except when asked not to by Perry Metzger.
> 
> The point of this code, in case you missed it, is so that people can
> take responsibility for their own encryption and not have to trust
> software installed by someone else, just like we all use pgp rather
> than Clipper.

You can't help trusting code installed by someone else. How many of us
write our own operating systems from scratch? So long as you have the
source code, and the source code to the telnet I am speaking of is
widely available, what is the difference?

The source code for the authenticating telnet is available from

	ftp.cray.com(128.162.15.3):src/telnet/telnet.94.02.07.NE.tar.Z

Now, David Borman has not been very forthcoming with the encrypting
version of this system (although all the hooks are already there) and
if anyone wants to take a crack at adding in an implementation of the
draft encryption standard (which should be quite quick) that would
indeed be a useful effort. I will happily mail a copy of the draft RFC
to anyone who doesn't have it and can't get it.

Perry

"Perry E. Metzger" says:
> As for this current "idea", with an implementation of an encrypted
> STANDARD telnet already written and likely available soon for
> anonymous FTP, I think I'm being sane, not "a wet blanket".

By the way, I forgot to mention, the 4.4 BSD domestic release already
includes the encrypted telnet. In order to head off foolish
reimplementation, perhaps someone would be willing to release the
relevant patches to the NE release to turn it into a full encrypting
telnet? The code is, after all, already under the Berkeley copyright
and thus releasable.

Perry

"Perry E. Metzger" says:
> The source code for the authenticating telnet is available from
> 
> 	ftp.cray.com(128.162.15.3):src/telnet/telnet.94.02.07.NE.tar.Z
> 
> Now, David Borman has not been very forthcoming with the encrypting
> version of this system (although all the hooks are already there) and
> if anyone wants to take a crack at adding in an implementation of the
> draft encryption standard (which should be quite quick) that would
> indeed be a useful effort. I will happily mail a copy of the draft RFC
> to anyone who doesn't have it and can't get it.

I didn't realize it, but the telnet RFCs and encryption draft RFCs are
also available in the same directory on ftp.cray.com

Perry

> Perry, I'm no longer interested in what you have to say.  You've been
> a wet blanket and have pooh-poohed every practical suggestion I've
> ever seen anyone making - weren't you one of the first people to
> post to the netphone project telling us we were all wasting our time?
> 
> Cypherpunks write code, except when asked not to by Perry Metzger.

Sigh. If trying to avoid re-inventing square wheels and duplicating stuff
that has already been done is being a wet blanket, then I have to say I am
very proud to join Perry in the "pseudo-tentacle wet blanket club". One
of the major reasons I still read this list is so that I can find out when
I am wasting my time - if somebody has come up with a workable solution, and
it seems likely to gain wide acceptance, it is rather stupid of me to
hide in my magical cyberspace fairytale virtualland and write code that
no-one is going to pick up and use. But of course I am free to do so, should
I so desire...

	Julf