by mail.netbsd.org with SMTP; 18 Oct 2000 13:35:58 -0000
	by noc.untraceable.net (8.11.1/8.11.1/bonk!) id e9IDZp929553;
	Wed, 18 Oct 2000 09:35:51 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 09:35:51 -0400
From: Andrew Brown <atatat@atatdot.net>
To: Atsushi Onoe <onoe@sm.sony.co.jp>
Cc: sommerfeld@orchard.arlington.ma.us, cjs@cynic.net,
   hubert.feyrer@informatik.fh-regensburg.de, tech-security@netbsd.org
Subject: Re: setuid ssh
Message-ID: <20001018093550.A29522@noc.untraceable.net>
Reply-To: Andrew Brown <atatat@atatdot.net>
References: <20001018131128.9F5132A2A@orchard.arlington.ma.us> <200010181326.e9IDQLv03069@duplo.sm.sony.co.jp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <200010181326.e9IDQLv03069@duplo.sm.sony.co.jp>; from onoe@sm.sony.co.jp on Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 10:26:21PM +0900
Return-Receipt-To: receipts@daemon.org

>> .rhosts and .rhosts/rsa must die.
>
>I think .rhosts/rsa configuration may still be suitable for some
>enviroment; e.g. remote backup from cron.  Perhaps you want to set
>IgnoreUserKnownHosts.

rhosts/rsa with a passphrased key seems *better* to me than plain rsa
alone.  or am i completly misunderstanding it?

>I'm afraid that disabling all authentication other than user's RSA
>causes proliferation of ssh-agent, which looks more halmful than
>rhosts/rsa authentication.

that would definitely happen.

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."