RSH Tools

[Tom "spot" Callaway]

On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 14:39, Chuck Wolber wrote:
> Indeed. I meant the post more as a troll to see what sort of issues would
> be raised. So far I haven't seen anything that, at least at first glance,
> couldn't be done with ssh and a symbolic link. Is the issue:
> 
> 1) Users who can't or won't change?
> 
> -or-
> 
> 2) SSH is simply not transparent enough to masquerade as rsh?

I doubt this is the case in 99% of cases.

I think you've hit the nail on the head with #1, I hear a lot of large
enterprise shops tell me "the documented standard says rsh || the
application vendor told me i had to have rsh", and all the technical
documentation in the world can't change their minds. I usually make them
aware of the security implications of plaintext transmissions, and let
them play with their toys.

~spot