Re: [Full-Disclosure] SSH vs. TLS
From: Gerhard den Hollander (gerhard_at_fugro-jason.com)
Date: 06/29/04
- Previous message: B3r3n: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint"
- In reply to: Ng, Kenneth (US): "RE: [Full-Disclosure] SSH vs. TLS"
- Next in thread: Valdis.Kletnieks_at_vt.edu: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] SSH vs. TLS"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: "Ng, Kenneth (US)" <kenng@kpmg.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 21:29:23 +0200
* Ng, Kenneth (US) <kenng@kpmg.com> (Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:30:12PM -0500)
> Today this is a straw man arguement. You can tunnel practically anything
> over any protocol. I've seen NFS tunneled over EMAIL. Yes, when you type
> "ls" the NFS request packet gets UUENCODED into an email, sent over
> sendmail, fed into a decoder and routed back into NFS, and then back. A few
> seconds later and you get a directory listing. And frankly, I'm not sure
> you want to know what besides http really goes over port 80.
In fact, it's quite easy to tunnel ssh through your http(s) proxy
(do a google on proxytunnel) and it's most liekly that you can tunnel ssh
over a TLS telnet session, thiogh someone might have to be convinced that
writign such a thing is necesary ;) )
> : original poster:
>> - SSH allows tunneling other protocols, circumventing firewall policies.
Gerhard, (faliquid@xs4all.nl) == The Acoustic Motorbiker ==
-- __0 Oh my God, the bomb has just dropped =`\<, And everybody climbed right on top (=)/(=) Singing,"What a beautifull country _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
- Previous message: B3r3n: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint"
- In reply to: Ng, Kenneth (US): "RE: [Full-Disclosure] SSH vs. TLS"
- Next in thread: Valdis.Kletnieks_at_vt.edu: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] SSH vs. TLS"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
