Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 12:15:22 +0100 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@googlemail.com> To: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> Cc: Olivier Nicole <on@cs.ait.ac.th>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Remotely edit user disk quota Message-ID: <b79ecaef0905280415sa7e8c1fv215f8a57596806d2@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0905281310570.59311@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <200905281030.n4SAUXdA046386@banyan.cs.ait.ac.th> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0905281234430.59126@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <200905281041.n4SAfTHw046546@banyan.cs.ait.ac.th> <b79ecaef0905280352k600e2a79mef2a6b3efe41f0a3@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0905281301180.59311@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <b79ecaef0905280405w1cfa3e6en59ab1a18e20658bf@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0905281310570.59311@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2009/5/28 Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>: >> Due to these serious problems rlogin was rarely used across untrusted >> networks > > Good you finally pointed out the most important thing > > "rlogin/rsh is insecure across untrusted network" > > This is QUITE a difference between this and "rsh is insecure. period" > > rsh is as secure as the communication channel. If it can be considered > secure - DO USE rsh, because it's fastest as it doesn't have any encryption > overhead. > > > But the encryption overhead is almost nothing. The best security comes in layers. Also, I think it's a bad idea to leave money lying round like that. That's why we have banks. More layers. Chris -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in a mailing list?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b79ecaef0905280415sa7e8c1fv215f8a57596806d2>