Full Disclosure mailing list archives

RE: SSH vs. TLS


From: <full-disclosure () nym hush com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:29:25 -0700

So, what do you all think? Is SSH really that bad or are these
requirements unreasonable? Is it really worth implementing TLS Telnet?

The requirements are perfect if you want to describe TLS and PKI.

- SSH is not an IETF standard.
Why is this even an issue? It's an open protocol, and has been proven.
 Furthermore, the commercial and open source ssh clients/servers have
likely been under more scrutiny than Telnet over TLS software.

- SSH allows tunneling other protocols, circumventing firewall
  policies.
SSH tunneling is a problem because the data is encrypted.  TLS encrypts
data, and other things can be tunneled over TLS, using the port for Telnet
over TLS.  Using TLS doesn't prevent circumvention of firewall policies
through tunneling.

- There must be a mechanism to integrate both client and server keys
  into LDAP.
Well, that's convenient, isn't it?

As for the other requirements, like you, I believe that Kerberos will
address those issues.  However, I've never implemented it and can't be
certain.

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html


Current thread: