<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]

Subject: Re: PKCIPE PORT SELECTION PROBLEM
From: "insecure,AT,mail,DOT,od,DOT,ua" <insecure,AT,mail,DOT,od,DOT,ua>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 11:13:19 +0100
In-reply-to: <200302202028.50679.aortuno@futurespace.es>

On Friday 21 February 2003 18:07, Dick St.Peters wrote:
> > I decided to abstain from using PKCIPE. Nearly-trivial
> > scripts can accomplish the same using ssh.
> >
> > PKCIPE is fine per se, but I think CIPE project might
> > as well save developer time and efforts and use already
> > existing tools instead.
>
> Using ssh requires the CIPE user have a shell account on
> the tunnel server.  In many situations - including many
> under which CIPE is used - that is out of the question.

Please describe this situation to me in more detail.

> In my opinion PKCIPE addresses a need and is a valuable
> addition to CIPE.
>
> People need to remember that situations differ, and just
> because one person doesn't need something doesn't mean
> it's of no use to others.  Otherwise, people who don't
> need encryption could argue there's no need for CIPE
> because un-encrypted GRE and IP/IP make perfectly good
> tunnels that have been used for years.
>
> Some peoples' situations require encryption, so they need
> CIPE or something similar.  Other peoples' situations
> prohibit shell access, so they need tools like PKCIPE.

I made a special account, user cannot log in normally
because his/hers login program just reads key, restarts
ciped and exits. If this is not ok in your situation,
I'd like to know more about it.
-- 
vda





<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]