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

[Ken Hornstein <kenh%cmf.nrl.navy.mil@localhost>]

Alright, my last message on the topic.

I have the following issues with this paragraph, and I did read it all,
but I felt that one sentence was enough to sum it up.  But in whole:

>"Because while FTP may be "securable" using these methods, the fact is that
> it has not actually been secured this way in real life. 

(I think we covered this before).

>Implementations
> of these things have existed for a while, and have simply not caught on.

I disagree that they have not "caught on" - in the communities that use
Kerberos, for example, GSSAPI ftp is very popular.  I can even think of
several commercial implementations of GSSAPI ftp.

> I will not debate why, but is is true.

Fair enough, but I disagree with the basic premise.

>In the short time that it has
> existed, my impression is that SSH has achieved much more widespread use
> than any of these techniques.

I'm not sure about this one, but I'd be going on gut feelings.  But without
hard numbers to back this up ... it wouldn't be very meaningful.

>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."

And again, I disagree that the others have failed in the first place.
(Mind you, I don't think that file-transfer over SSH is bad ... I'm
just saying that I don't see any evidence that the others have failed).

And come on ... you have to admit that saying things like "not used in
real life," "not caught on", and saying that the other technologies
have "failed" isn't exactly the same as saying they haven't achieved
widespread use on the Internet (if we're using the "widespead use over
the Internet" benchmark, we should all be working furiously toward
getting SMTP-over-TLS and HTTP-over-TLS working better :-) ).

>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.

Well, I appreciate the clarification (and my apologies for misunderstanding
your out-of-context remark) ... but reading back over that paragraph, I
still get the same meaning out of it.  *shrug*

--Ken