Hi, On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 07:52:09PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 10:09:31AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > 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. > > > > > 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... Will you stop the pedantry, already? A simple home network can be "secure" in the sense that to get access, you either need to break into the house or compromise the server that sits between the internet and the home network. I wouldn't care in the least what happens to the laptop in either of those events, if the server is the most important machine anyway. If you say, "that server should not be connected to the internet then, but to a more secure network", you would seem to contradict yourself. Emile. -- E-Advies - Emile van Bergen emile@e-advies.nl tel. +31 (0)70 3906153 http://www.e-advies.nl
Attachment:
pgpj4Y8skespF.pgp
Description: PGP signature