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:
- SSH vs. TLS dante (Jun 29)
- Re: SSH vs. TLS Valdis . Kletnieks (Jun 29)
- Re: SSH vs. TLS Steve (Jun 29)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: SSH vs. TLS Ng, Kenneth (US) (Jun 29)
- Re: SSH vs. TLS Gerhard den Hollander (Jun 29)
- RE: SSH vs. TLS full-disclosure (Jun 29)
- RE: SSH vs. TLS List Bot (Jun 30)
