Subject: Re: Kerberos, don't laugh.
To: Christopher J Mason <cmason+@CMU.EDU>
From: Isaac Salpeter <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/19/1996 16:01:57
On Sat, 19 Oct 1996, David Bushong wrote:
> Kerberos? hahahaha.. sorry, had to do that. Why don't you just use ssh
> instead? It does full DES encryption of all communication, and RSA
> encrypted exchange of passwords. The only thing slow about it is inital
> login (something like 20 secs instead of 2 secs to average host) As far
> as I recall (I've been wrong before), the README even mentions
> netbsd/mac68k (as working)
ssh makes beautifully on netbsd/mac68k. Works like a charm. On the server
I administrate (ticalc.org), we have disabled telnet and rlogin entirely
and rely on ssh exclusively. Initial login is not that slow, I find.
Something like 2-5 seconds, depending on the load on the other end. Of
course, this is from my SE/30 with no other users, YMMV. Runs as swiftly
as telnet, for the most part. Also, it can handle X redirection securely,
if you're so inclined.
A lot more convenient than kerberos, that's for sure.
I wouldn't ever use an unencrypted connection on a university network,
where there is a greater concentration of computer pranksters than in the
regular population. Especially at CMU. :)
the ticalc.org project