Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.wildstar.net!news.ececs.uc.edu!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news-in2.uu.net!quack!quack.kfu.com!nsayer From: nsayer@quack.kfu.com (Nick Sayer) Subject: Re: TCP Encryption, part 2 Message-ID: <nAXzHyH@quack.kfu.com> Sender: news@quack.kfu.com (0000-News(0000)) Organization: The Duck Pond public unix, +1 408 249 9630, log in as guest. References: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960929121424.16142A-100000@darkstar> <52nuf0$ghr@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu> <Pine.BSF.3.91.960930215337.17906A-100000@darkstar> <52qi95$alt@nyx10.cs.du.edu> Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 21:58:46 UTC Lines: 18 thu@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Timothy Hu) writes: >Would TCP/rsh/telnet encryption be feasible across proxy servers and >firewalls? Well, speaking just for SRA Telnet, it's no different than ordinary Telnet as far as firewalls are concerned. And as for proxies, well the only difference between SRA Telnet and ordinary Telnet is the 8 bit nature of the traffic, so you shouldn't have any trouble there. You shouldn't have any trouble socksifying SRA. At least no more trouble than ordinary Telnet. It really is just ordinary Telnet with some extra stuff packed in. -- Nick Sayer <nsayer@quack.kfu.com> | "Quick man! Cling tenaciously to my N6QQQ @ N0ARY.#NORCAL.CA.USA.NOAM | buttocks!" +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest' | URL: http://www.kfu.com/~nsayer/ | -- Powdered Toast Man