Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 18:56:16 -0600 (MDT) From: Wes Peters - Softweyr LLC <softweyr@xmission.com> To: email@john.net (John Clark) Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pppd vs. getty with inetd, security Message-ID: <199704090056.SAA18468@xmission.xmission.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970407065957.00ab4100@199.3.74.250> from "John Clark" at Apr 7, 97 06:59:57 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> This really works great, but there is no security here -- anyone can call
> in without login confirmation. How do I implement security with this
> approach? You say CHAP / PAP? Well, I have never used either -- the
> password protection of the shell has been sufficient to date. I also need
> to login with various clients which may not have such advanced protocols.
PAP and CHAP are not in any way "advanced" protocols. I don't know of
an implmentation of PPP that doesn't have at least PAP authentication;
it is a basic feature of PPP.
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
http://www.xmission.com/~softweyr softweyr@xmission.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704090056.SAA18468>