Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Re: open telnet port
From: Barry Fitzgerald (bkfsec_at_sdf.lonestar.org)
Date: 09/10/04
- Previous message: Andrew: "[Full-Disclosure] Re: Teen hacker controls ebay"
- In reply to: Raj Mathur: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Re: open telnet port"
- Next in thread: Robert Moss: "RE: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Re: open telnet port"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: Raj Mathur <raju@linux-delhi.org> Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:03:03 -0400
Raj Mathur wrote:
>Remove low-bandwidth from the list of requirements, since ssh can
>compress traffic on the fly and reduce bandwidth consumption
>significantly.
>
>
>
I would not remove low-bandwidth from the list. Compressing the
connection requires further CPU consumption, and if the requirement is
both low bandwidth and low CPU consumption, then you obviously can't
offload more on the CPU, right?
Note: I also said that we're talking about a situation where sniffing
isn't an issue. These are few and far between, but they do exist. In
this case, any added CPU/bandwidth/whatever loss is simply waste.
-Barry
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
- Previous message: Andrew: "[Full-Disclosure] Re: Teen hacker controls ebay"
- In reply to: Raj Mathur: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Re: open telnet port"
- Next in thread: Robert Moss: "RE: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Re: open telnet port"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]