Re: Bug#192416: ITP: rsh-redone -- Reimplementation of remote shell tools.
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 08:49:48AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 01:36:41PM +0100, Andrew Suffield 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.
Like telling people not to run Debian on their 1024-node compute
cluster? Seriously though, you're arguing on the premise that security
is an overall necessity, and while I tend to agree in general, there are
a few select cases like the one mentioned above where it makes perfect
sense to not encrypt any traffic on the network.
Daniel.
Reply to: