On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 07:26:44PM +0100, John Levon wrote: > On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 07:14:04PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > > > okay, I wasn't sure it was the plan and I was asking. As Dan pointed > > > > out it's the right approach, okay, I'm just surprized. > > > > > > To be clear, we'd love to see a remote console implementation happen, > > > it's just not a priority for us right now. > > > > Newer QEMU also supports the 'telnet' protocol, so we might be better off > > just telling people to use a telnet client, and keep this for local only > > PTY based console access. > > Indeed, this is what we're doing for debugging purposes, and it already > works (for HVM only). But of course it's not secure yet, so it's really > no better than just sshing to run virsh console locally. I've no idea just how much work it'd be, but IIRC there is a telnet extension to layer in Kerberos for both auth & session encryption. Might be something to think about in the future, since it'd allow secure console access without having to give out a shell account on the host machine Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list