Re: Does OpenSSH use RCP?

Dimitri Maziuk <dima@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Even SSL is often criticized for doing two
> things -- encryption and authentication -- in one protocol.

I cannot see, why SSL should be critizised for that.

> And then ssh comes along and crams interactive logins, file
> transfer and remote command execution into a single protocol,

SSH has the concept of subsystems. And this seems not very dumb to me.
If you want to, those subsystems are protocols in higher layers for SSH.

> So you have to wait for eof on the
> pipe. How long do you wait? -- hard to tell. OpenSSH's answer is
> "while(1)". D'oh!

Please let's talk about protocols, not about implementation bugs.

> > The two-socket-concept is not very good for SSL either. So I really
> > cannot see, why FTP or FTPs should be a good idea. Perhaps you can
> > explain that.
> Ever heard of out-of-band signalling?

I can read manpages. And yes, I'm doing network programming from time
to time.

> The reason it doesn't work with TCP/IP is that stoned Berkeley
> undergrads back in the 70's didn't see the need for an extra
> layer on top of transport.

If you agree with me, that FTP is ugly, why do you argue?

> One connection - one application model doesn't work, never has.

I cannot see that. There are many protocols beside FTP, which don't
have this problem.

> Its results are sendmail (see Morris Worm)

You're talking about buggy implementations again. And, BTW, you're
referencing SMTP, which solved the problem of FTP without such an
ugly construction.

> problems with ftp

Yes.

> and more recently corba.

What is your problem with IIOP for the matters of this discussion?

Yours,
VB.
--
Netzwerkgrundlagen anhand Windows lernen zu wollen ist doch wie seine
ersten sexuellen Erfahrungen mit einer Prostituierten zu sammlen: Die
Leidenschaft fehlt, das wirklich Wichtige lernt man dabei nicht, und die
Chance sich einen Schädling einzufangen ist hoch. (Lukas Graf in d.c.s.m)
.