der Mouse wrote:
>> Telnet is just a bad idea these days, ssh basically works the same
>> and is not such a bad idea.
> 
> If you think ssh basically works the same as telnet, there really is
> nothing more to discuss, since you are living in a drastically
> different reality from the one I am.
> 
> Each supports a form of remote login, and that's about where the
> similarities end.  The way one logs in is different, the additional
> facilities provided beyond login are wildly different, there is a
> *huge* difference in the computational load imposed (if the machines
> are otherwise idle, taking a millisecond rather than a microsecond may
> be no big deal, but if you're doing it a thousand times, it matters)...
> 
> /~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
> \ / Ribbon Campaign
>  X  Against HTML	       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
> / \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
> 

Most of the noticeable computational load is in set up (RSA or DH 
exchange), once off cost but right where it'll annoy you the most during 
an interactive set up.

However, overall SSH has a very wide range of options in selecting the 
crypto used - it usually only takes a few minutes to do "openssl speed" 
and pick the minimum crypto algorithm to meet your security requirements 
that offers the best speed, and place that in the ssh_config Ciphers 
line first. They're in compatibility order now (so AES, then 3DES, then 
finally the Blowfish and CAST), and overall it's pretty good, but if you 
want to squeeze the last bit out of the CPU, blowfish-cbc manages a 
better job of it.