[1783] in linux-net channel archive
Re: rlogin yes, telnet no ?!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Todd Fries)
Fri Feb 2 03:23:16 1996
To: ecarp@netcom.com
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 07:38:41 -0600 (CST)
Cc: jmorriso@multiactive.com, jvichere@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca,
linux-net@vger.rutgers.edu, masq@indyramp.com
In-Reply-To: <199601311323.IAA28388@dal1820.computek.net> from "Ed Carp, KHIJOL SysAdmin" at Jan 31, 96 07:23:21 am
From: tfries@umr.edu (Todd Fries)
> > It would be a good feature for masquerade to preserve privileged ports (or not - make it configurable).
> > rlogin and rlogind use the privileged ports for "security" and stuff like .rhosts. It's not secure
> > at all though.
>
> That's why I use SOCKS and ssh. I don't even bother with masquerade -
> it's not worth the hassle, and SOCKS is much easier to set up.
Really? So SOCKS doesn't require any special software on the computers not running
SOCKS? And SOCKS is easier than:
/usr/local/bin/ipfw a m all from 192.168.0.3/24 to 0.0.0.0/0
to set up?
Hrm...last I knew you had to get special software, compile it, install it,
and figure out how to use it.
Please enlighten me.
--
Todd Fries...tfries@umr.edu
http://www.cs.umr.edu/~tfries
