Re: OpenSSH/scp ->> F-Secure SSH server Problems

["Richard E. Silverman" <res%shore.net@localhost>]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Ken Hornstein wrote:

> In my mind, there's a LARGE difference between:
> 
> "they have not, however, achieved widespread use in the Internet in general"
> 
> which you used in your most recent message, and
> 
> "the fact is that it has not actually been secured this way in real life"
> 
> which you used in your original message.

The second sentence merely paraphrases what I wrote to begin with, which I
did to avoid having to repeat it, which I will now do anyway since you're
ignoring it.  Here is what I wrote:

"Because while FTP may be "securable" using these methods, the fact is that
 it has not actually been secured this way in real life.  Implementations
 of these things have existed for a while, and have simply not caught on.
 I will not debate why, but is is true.  In the short time that it has
 existed, my impression is that SSH has achieved much more widespread use
 than any of these techniques.  Hence, an easy-to-use, comprehensive
 file-transfer protocol that operates over SSH has a good chance of
 succeeding where these various secured FTP's have failed."

The sentences following the first one, explain what I meant: that those
other techniques exist and are used, but not generally enough to count as
having "secured FTP" in the broadest sense.  That's all.

> I take HUGE issue with your characterization that these protocols are
> not used "in real life".

If that were all I had said, without any other explanation for what I
meant by that phrase, then I would agree with your objection.  However, I
think my meaning was sufficiently well explained in the rest of the text.
I'm sorry you didn't find it clear enough.

> As for being quoted out of context ... you were responding to the
> original poster's comment about different technologies used for securing
> ftp!  How is that not in-context to this discussion?

This is very confusing.  I did not say that your message was not in
context of the discussion.  I said that you quoted me out of context.
Those are different things.  You quoted the phrase "in real life" without
the following text which explained what I meant by it, and proceeded to
attach a very different meaning to it from that which I clearly
articulated in my post.

Since we're both clear on what I meant now (I hope), perhaps we could
continue to discuss the merits of the protocols in question.

-- 
  Richard Silverman
  slade%shore.net@localhost