On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 06:48:46PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx> said: > > On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 11:50:51AM +0100, Adam Tkac wrote: > > > I think, It's no argument to include rsh in next versions of fc/rhel. > > > OpenSSH could successfully substitute this component. SSH is more secure > > > than rsh and has all features of rsh. Do you think anything else?? > > > > The rsh _client_ has its uses in legacy environments. > > The daemon, questionable. > > Likewise, why we still ship telnet-server in core is beyond me. > > I have needed telnet-server a few times when trying to debug when > connecting from network gear (no ssh in most). hmm, would they have had rsh? > Also, where we allow > shell access to web hosting customers, we still allow telnet (most of > them are on Windows and it only includes a telnet client). by default yes, but there are a number of good free windows ssh clients. > Both telnet and rsh (client and server) are stable packages with few > security issues historically. security-wise, they are inherently broken by design in that they transmit everything in cleartext. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
