Subj : Iand alternaernative transports
To   : Al
From : Oli
Date : Wed Nov 20 2019 10:57 am

 Ol>> Why don't we want ssh? I think it could be a good option and has
 Ol>> also some advantages over TLS. It depends on the specification
 Ol>> and implementation though.  I imagine there are multiple ways to
 Ol>> use the SSH protocol with binkp. Some very elegant, others might
 Ol>> be cringworthy.

 Al> Maybe I need to be more open minded.

 Al> I tend to think of ssh as just a secure shell. I'm using ssh now as I
 Al> write this on a BBS so I suppose binkp over ssh isn't such a stretch.

The terminal thing is only one functionality of SSH. A SSH session can have
several channels and there are differnet subsystem (e.g. sftp). From RFC 4254:

   A session is a remote execution of a program.  The program may be a
   shell, an application, a system command, or some built-in subsystem.
   It may or may not have a tty, and may or may not involve X11
   forwarding.  Multiple sessions can be active simultaneously.

I don't understand all the internals, but my understanding is that SSH is
designed to be used with other protocols.

 Al> I think scp might be more what we want but I'm open to ideas and
 Al> different ways of doing things.

 Al> Ultimately what I would like is secure binkp, easy to install and use
 Al> for all ftn nodes.

+1

and it should be really secure and not broken by design. Good enough for the
next 20 years (in fidotime: the time other software need to catch up)


--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
 * Origin: 🌈 (21:1/151)

.