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

> Perry, I *already* have the bsd4.4 Kerberized telnet with DES that comes with
	> the BSDI distribution (original code in the US, a re-implementation on
	> supplementary floppies in the UK)

	Not the same program at all. Why don't you actually read some of the
	RFCs instead of making yourself look foolish?

Well if you have nothing useful to contribute but won't shut up anyway,
I will.  This conversation is over.

	> Not *one* of the dozen odd sites I telnet to is running it.

	Have you asked them to run it? Have you considered simply running the
	daemon yourself on another port instead of implementing some crude
	hack?

I already do this.

Goodbye.

::
^From.*metzger
|/dev/null

G

Graham Toal says:
> Well if you have nothing useful to contribute but won't shut up anyway,
> I will.  This conversation is over.

For the benefit of those who aren't being petulant, I will repeat:

The existing, already implemented and available, cryptographic
authentication (but not encrypted) version of the new BSD telnet is
available from:

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

This is not theoretical code; it really exists. See for yourself. No,
it doesn't just do kerberos.

The proposed telnet encryption and authentication RFCs are available
in the same directory.

The BSD 4.4 domestic distribution already has the encrypted version of
the code in it; perhaps someone should "liberate" it.

Those wishing to run an encrypted telnet to a remote machine that does
not support the new telnet options should ask the remote system
administrator to install the new telnet, which compiles on virtually
every architecture around, including SVR4 (or at least Solaris).
Failing that, you can run your own telnetd on the remote host.

Sorry if suggesting that people use already existing code is being a
"wet blanket".

Perry

Has anyone got an encrypted version of that port bouncer program done yet ?

And a `client' to go with it (be useful).

I figure this could be used to solve the telnet problem...

but does anyone have any suggestions for rlogin or just disable it ?