From owner-freebsd-security Mon Oct 2 17: 1: 8 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from earth.backplane.com (placeholder-dcat-1076843290.broadbandoffice.net [64.47.83.26]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E78237B502 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 17:01:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by earth.backplane.com (8.11.0/8.9.3) id e9300o311655; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 17:00:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 17:00:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Matt Dillon Message-Id: <200010030000.e9300o311655@earth.backplane.com> To: Garance A Drosihn Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proposed minor mod to openssh for interactive operation References: <200009300023.e8U0NUW20137@earth.backplane.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org :> two programs interactively. :> That is, send command, wait response, send command, wait :> response. Delaying packets is a bad idea and cuts :> performance over the link by about 20%. : :Would it be more appropriate to use stunnel (in ports) instead :of an ssh connection for your application? : :(I'm just wondering...) :--- :Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu No, ssh provides the authentication mechanism as well as the secure link trivially. Besides, both rsh and ssh were designed for two-way operation so presumably they should actually do it in a reasonably optimal manner when two-way operation is requested. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message