From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Dec 16 20:15:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA04573 for chat-outgoing; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 20:15:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns.mt.sri.com (sri-gw.MT.net [206.127.105.141]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA04558 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 20:14:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nate@mt.sri.com) Received: from mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by ns.mt.sri.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA04671; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 21:14:55 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate@rocky.mt.sri.com) Received: by mt.sri.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA11573; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 21:14:54 -0700 Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 21:14:54 -0700 Message-Id: <199712170414.VAA11573@mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Charles Mott Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG, softweyr@xmission.com Subject: Re: Support for secure http protocols In-Reply-To: References: <34973506.B112548D@xmission.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.29 under 19.15 XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org [ Restricted to -chat like the original author asked ] > Ssh and sshd are already universal in the unix world, and the Wintel > variant (F-Secure) is reasonably priced. And doesn't have nearly the necessary features, is unstable, and due to port forwarding is a *huge* security risk unless the system administrator has set things up securely. SSH is a *GREAT* solution for many things, but for secure HTTP stuff I don't think it's a very good solution. Nate