From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Apr 8 17:56:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA16113 for questions-outgoing; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 17:56:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xmission.xmission.com (softweyr@xmission.xmission.com [198.60.22.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA16101 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 17:56:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from softweyr@localhost) by xmission.xmission.com (8.8.5/8.7.5) id SAA18468; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 18:56:16 -0600 (MDT) From: Wes Peters - Softweyr LLC Message-Id: <199704090056.SAA18468@xmission.xmission.com> Subject: Re: pppd vs. getty with inetd, security To: email@john.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 18:56:16 -0600 (MDT) Cc: questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970407065957.00ab4100@199.3.74.250> from "John Clark" at Apr 7, 97 06:59:57 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > 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