Re: Bug#192416: ITP: rsh-redone -- Reimplementation of remote shell tools.
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 08:49:48AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Security should be end-to-end, not point-to-point. The sheer number of
> > times a site has been compromised because their "secure" network
> > wasn't and somebody was using rsh...
>
> I quite agree. We should be thinking about ways to remove the need for
> the *first* rsh implementation we ship, not adding another one.
rsh is a tool. It has its uses. On a network with no public access and
only trusted users (perhaps I personally run several computers), ssh is
overkill and can impede performance.
Are you suggesting that we also remove anything that can speak FTP, HTTP
without SSL, SMTP without SSL, finger, gopher, telnet, talk, or any number
of other protocols of that nature? If so, I respectfully suggest that you
are smoking something *very* good.
If not, then why pick on rsh?
Reply to: