Subject: Re: US crypto export resctrictions 'unconstitutional'
To: Andrew Gillham <email@example.com>
From: Tracy J. Di Marco White <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/07/1999 22:01:14
}> 2) Domestic is worthless anyway. Who wants 1DES based Kerb IV anyway?
Unless and until we have Kerb 5, I'll continue using Kerb IV... I'd
like it to continue working.
}So why is this "broken" implementation still in the tree then? It
}claims to be "supported", but doesn't appear to work except with a
}couple clients. The kerberos samples in inetd.conf show '-k' options
}to both rshd and rlogind that don't exist, and I haven't been able
}to get telnetd to do anything with kerberos.
I use encrypted (kerberized) telnet both to and from my various
NetBSD boxes, and it works quite well. I also use kerberos passwords
on some of them, it works just fine. I don't use rsh or rlogin, so
I don't see problems with them.
}All in all, it seems like it doesn't work, and I haven't heard anyone
}refuting the claims that it is "worthless."
I use it regularly. I find it a benefit.
Tracy J. Di Marco White
Project Vincent Systems Manager