Re: Why no "ftps" and/or "telnets"?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Christian Dysthe wrote:
> one thing that puzzles me is why we have gotten SSH, SRP and other
> services for secure data transfer instead of secure versions of already
> existing services like we have for http (https). Some of this stuff is
> even commercial software to the degree you literally need to license the
> protocol itself (SSH2).
Some of it does exist, some of it no one has gotten around to implimenting
yet, and some of it isn't completely practical AFAIK. The reason https is
so ubiquitous is that Netscape really pushed this as a feature, in their
browsers and servers. Not that many companies make both ftp clients and
servers (this doesn't count the generic ones, of course) or telnet clients
and servers, so there was never a push to have secured versions for the
masses.
It's too bad SSH2 is so proprietary... i hear there's a project to write
"lsh" to replace it, but (of course) it's not even close to done yet.
> I am not a network guru at all, so I might miss something obvious here.
> However, I would really have liked to see something like "ftps" and
> "telnets" which was as invisible to the user as https. Then I would be
> able to use my normal ftp client (ftps enabled of course) instead of
> using ssh where file transfer is command line. Yes, I know Linux folks
> like command line clients, but there are people out there preferring GUI
> clients and mouse control. I am one of them.
Some things are good with a command line, some are better with a GUI. And
whatever you think is one or the other, someone will disagree. Religious
issues... ;)
> I said above I might have missed something. Maybe I even missed that
> what I have stated here as wish even exists? I have looked through the
> packages in Debian, but I can not find any trace of anything like it
> though.
There's secure telnet, server and client, in non-US, the same place where
the ssh debs are (ftp://non-us.debian.org). i don't know of any secure ftp
packages, although i've heard rumors at one time or another...
> Guess I will have to keep running SSH....?
Might as well keep it around. It's good for secure remote X sessions, and
ssh more widespread than ssl-enabled telnet.
- --
finger for PGP public key.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBN8oHa77M/9WKZLW5AQGkEgP/VhMZl0ASPIQEkCyyOnAtqQmL7bCsJOew
WvfvZXbXvIblIkElVfMtR3YMhSHRNRZ1+FWPEsEQCh4XNhGrhXgShAQ3u1EblqJQ
615T/y/erL4ICDk562cqouwIgHdM2RA4wKqeD/GdZI3sWgh8vKEIIw2h2aU9SsoT
ZMoK5oNj6yo=
=suDV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: