Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 19:55:35 +1100 From: Jason Birch <jbirch@jbirch.net> To: John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> Cc: Ben Woods <woodsb02@gmail.com>, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@freebsd.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Dag=2DErling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no>, "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-security@freebsd.org" <freebsd-security@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: OpenSSH HPN Message-ID: <CAA=KUhs9g9gajxwLFBgn2nNhnn4oQSZ56FRVC%2BPde4ZZO=g7Ug@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20151111075930.GR65715@funkthat.com> References: <86io5a9ome.fsf@desk.des.no> <20151110175216.GN65715@funkthat.com> <56428C84.8050600@FreeBSD.org> <CAOc73CAHQ0FRPES7GrM6ckkWfgZCS3Se7GFUrDO4pR_EMVSvZQ@mail.gmail.com> <20151111075930.GR65715@funkthat.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:59 PM, John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> wrote: > If you have a trusted network, why not just use nc? Perhaps more generally relevant is that ssh/scp are *waves hands* vaguely analogous to secure versions of rsh/rlogin/rcp. I'd think that most cases of "I wanted to send files and invoke some commands on a remote machine, and due to $CIRCUMSTANCE I don't need or desire encryption" are covered by the older, also standard tools. Additionally, rsync can use rsh as its transport, for users who desire more advanced behaviour. ssh just seems to have more support; Installation will ask you if you'd like to run sshd (not rshd), ssh is rather ubiquitous as a way of "doing a thing remotely" (even in Windows soon!), etc. This is a good default to have; the overhead of security is tiny in nearly all cases. It would seem then that the extra complexity of maintenance development in supporting NONE in base doesn't really grant us any additional functionality in most cases. It's just more 'obvious'.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAA=KUhs9g9gajxwLFBgn2nNhnn4oQSZ56FRVC%2BPde4ZZO=g7Ug>