From owner-freebsd-security Thu Apr 18 02:15:55 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id CAA24659 for security-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 02:15:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hawk.gnome.co.uk (gnome.intecc.co.uk [194.72.95.90]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA24653 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 02:15:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jacs@localhost) by hawk.gnome.co.uk (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA01885; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 10:14:56 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 10:14:56 +0100 (BST) From: Chris Stenton Subject: Re: X To: Michael Smith Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org, tbalfe@tioga.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199604172323.IAA10788@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Michael Smith says: >> >> Thomas J Balfe stands accused of saying: >> > >> > Is it safer to run xdmcp or rexecd? I want to have some of my >> > machintoshes have access to a machine of mine for X. I am assuming that >> > rsh is the wrong way to go about it. >> >> Correct. xdmcp is good. >> If you need to up the level of security you can use DES authentication (via xdmcp) with the -cookie option on your X server. However, you will need to recompile your X world under FreeBSD as the standard X binary release does not support it. Chris