IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] TLS, PKI,

Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com> Wed, 14 July 2010 07:14 UTC

Return-Path: <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 061113A687E for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 00:14:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.95
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.649, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q-YjfllEaves for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 00:13:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67D833A6880 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 00:13:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xs01.extendedsubset.com ([69.164.193.58]) by mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <marsh@extendedsubset.com>) id 1OYwAR-000EjQ-OT; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:14:07 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.15] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xs01.extendedsubset.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 083356335; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:14:05 +0000 (UTC)
X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS
X-Originating-IP: 69.164.193.58
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1/jARIBOPRiqPTR8sTKFHfjCH19AjocUyk=
Message-ID: <4C3D63BC.8010601@extendedsubset.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 02:14:04 -0500
From: Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100527 Thunderbird/3.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
References: <E1OYuCk-0007Wo-0S@wintermute02.cs.auckland.ac.nz>
In-Reply-To: <E1OYuCk-0007Wo-0S@wintermute02.cs.auckland.ac.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS, PKI,
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:14:00 -0000

On 07/14/2010 12:08 AM, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> Robert Relyea<rrelyea@redhat.com>  writes:
>
>> Compared to SSL, SSH is still not popular, which sort of negates your point.
>
> SSH has captured close to 100% of its target market.  When was the last time
> you used telnet?

Don't get me wrong, I usually keep several SSH sessions and tunnels 
going all day long.

But I think there's still a large chunk of the "remote server 
administration" market running on RDP, VNC, Citrix, Xen, and whatever 
VMware is using for remote consoles. These all run atop TLS in the 
recommended configuration over public networks.

Popularity is a measure of something, but I'm not sure what. I am sure 
though that it's not a good measure of what I need out of my data 
security protocols.

- Marsh

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email