Re: Extensions to SSH in order to facilitate telnet replacement.

["Joseph Galbraith" <galb-list%vandyke.com@localhost>]

Well, it requires running a complicated
server (telnetd) with all it's additional
bugs and security vulnerabilities on your
server, and requires the client to have
another complicated (maybe expensive?)
piece of code on his/her system.

Or, imagine either your server or
client are dedicated devices -- now
a telnet server seems even less
attractive.

- Joseph

> Is there a reason, aside from elegance, that simply forwarding to
> localhost (or lo0) port 23 over ssh is unacceptable?  It has the
> great advantage that no client enhancement is required.
>
> On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 09:07:33AM +0000, Simon Tatham wrote:
> > Phillip Remaker <remaker%cisco.com@localhost> wrote:
> > > 1) Presentation of an out of band BREAK signal (IAC 243)  as in RFC854
[This
> > > is important]
> > > 2) Manipulation of RS-232 parameters (speed, parity, flowcontrol
state) by
> > > IAC commands (RFC2217) [Less important]
> > >
> > > It seems like SSH would be well suited to handle these using the well
> > > designed negotiation mechanisms within the protocol, and I was
wondering if
> > > anybody has already tackled this problem.  If not, I welcome
suggestions
> > > about the most elegant way to handle it within the spirit of the SSH
> > > protocol.
> >
> > SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_REQUEST seems like an ideal mechanism for these.
> > Just define a channel request type ("send-break%mydomain.com@localhost" or
> > similar), and enhance your SSH2 server to accept it on a
> > shell-session channel and do the right thing. Then all you need to
> > do is convince client implementors to add support for it. Note that
> > you don't need to affect the standardisation process to do this at
> > all - you could propose your extension as an RFC so you'd have
> > something to refer people to, but that needn't be a prerequisite for
> > getting it implemented.
>
> --
> Barney Wolff
>
> "Nonetheless, ease and peace had left this people still curiously
> tough.  They were, if it came to it, difficult to daunt or to kill;
> and they were, perhaps, so unwearyingly fond of good things not
> least because they could, when put to it, do without them, and could
> survive rough handling by grief, foe, or weather in a way that
> astonished those who did not know them well and looked no further
> than their bellies and their well-fed faces." J.R.R.T.
>