Subj : Iand alternaernative transports
To : Al
From : Oli
Date : Wed Nov 20 2019 10:57 am
Ol>> Why don't we want ssh? I think it could be a good option and has
Ol>> also some advantages over TLS. It depends on the specification
Ol>> and implementation though. I imagine there are multiple ways to
Ol>> use the SSH protocol with binkp. Some very elegant, others might
Ol>> be cringworthy.
Al> Maybe I need to be more open minded.
Al> I tend to think of ssh as just a secure shell. I'm using ssh now as I
Al> write this on a BBS so I suppose binkp over ssh isn't such a stretch.
The terminal thing is only one functionality of SSH. A SSH session can have
several channels and there are differnet subsystem (e.g. sftp). From RFC 4254:
A session is a remote execution of a program. The program may be a
shell, an application, a system command, or some built-in subsystem.
It may or may not have a tty, and may or may not involve X11
forwarding. Multiple sessions can be active simultaneously.
I don't understand all the internals, but my understanding is that SSH is
designed to be used with other protocols.
Al> I think scp might be more what we want but I'm open to ideas and
Al> different ways of doing things.
Al> Ultimately what I would like is secure binkp, easy to install and use
Al> for all ftn nodes.
+1
and it should be really secure and not broken by design. Good enough for the
next 20 years (in fidotime: the time other software need to catch up)
