Subj : Web access, false BBS ID
To   : Michel Samson
From : Greg Goodwin
Date : Sun Oct 31 2004 11:52 am

   Well, interesting conversation.

  So exactly how insecure is a telnet connection?  :)

  Doc Clu


> Hi Andy,
> About "Telnet Vs SSH" of Octobre 30:
>> You fail to take into account the context...
>> ...don't expect readers to divine it through psychic means!  Also
>> note that SSH and HTTPS are in no way tied to MS Windows.
> Oh!  My crysal ball shows you're becoming somewhat apprehensive, as
> if your life would depend on it!  Why must you keep making me look as if
> i made a statement or another and then steer topics in all directions?!?
> 8-o
>> Validation for an SSH or HTTPS session probably only lasts for the
>> duration of that session.  It is not a reasonable basis for anything
>> that happens after that session has ended.
> I appreciate the expert way in which you illustrate it, it's just i
> don't try to make ~TelNet~ secure - only safer!...  Anyway, i favour the
> prolonged support of this protocol, not a revision of it.  The objection
> over UserNames/PassWords being sent legibly over ~TelNet~ was noted, you
> got my reply.  Yet, the validation step can be done elsewhere via ~SSH~.
> That's it!  I guess you got "combining" translated to the letter...
>> I see no reason why i'd be unable to validate thru ~SSH~ and then
>> call a BBS thru unsecure ~TelNet~ SoftWare...
> AB} I never said that you couldn't.
> I sense a trace of irritation while LEGACY BBSers are mentioned, my
> reading of your late post tells me you're getting frustrated because our
> little chat suffers from noise.  I never wrote that you said i couldn't,
> and you didn't hear me say so - unless your mental powers were at work!?
>> Tunnelling through an SSH connection is common practice.
>> Use of the Web does not require MS Windows.
> Who wants to "Tunnel"?  It's OKay if "~POP3~ before ~SMTP~" doesn't
> remind you of anything...  Andy, i don't get paid to have correspondance
> on `FidoNet' and the intervention i addressed to mister Gordon was meant
> to mention a failure observed on a ~WEB~-based BBS system.  I'll have to
> ignore the rest, i find futile to correct more assertions about what i'm
> supposed to think!  My .QWK message-packets don't need to go thru ~SSH~.
> Salutations,
> Michel Samson
> a/s Bicephale
> ... I BBS using LEGACY DOS+TCP/IP+TelNet+ZMoDem/Kermit+.QWK technologies
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 # Origin: FamilyNet Sponsored by http://www.christian-wellness.net (8:8/2)
 * Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-6036 (1:10/345)

.