Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!cluster!necisa!boyd
From: boyd@necisa.ho.necisa.oz (Boyd Roberts)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: Duplicating ASCII bel in the tty driver (was Re: Changing tty drivers)
Message-ID: <1894@necisa.ho.necisa.oz>
Date: 25 Oct 90 00:26:32 GMT
References: <24752@adm.BRL.MIL> <1990Oct16.173128.7280@onion.pdx.com> <KGH600D@xds13.ferranti.com> <11552:Oct1721:36:1390@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <CEDMAN.90Oct17195500@lynx.ps.uci.edu> <1884@necisa.ho.necisa.oz> <CEDMAN.90Oct23083648@lynx.ps.uci.edu>
Organization: NEC Information Systems Australia Pty. Ltd.
Lines: 26

In article <CEDMAN.90Oct23083648@lynx.ps.uci.edu> cedman@lynx.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
>
>No, no , no, no ! You didn't read what I wrote I explicitly stated that
>this would only apply to fixed hardwired "dumb" terminals in public
>access areas.

Good to see you like to present a standard interface.  When I dial up
and login and don't get my two bel's it'll certainly cause some degree
of worry.  Two bel's good, one bel bad.  Isn't that the scenario?

>
>On the other hand, for dialup lines on which most file transfer protocolls
>are run there is little (altough not no) chance of spoofs. So this
>would NOT apply to them.
>

And these dialup lines are not in ``public access areas''.  I'd say the phone
system is pretty public given that there is large N number of phones on
the planet.  And dialup lines are _not_ a security problem?  Be serious.

What you want is better user authentication, not ASCII bel's in the tty output.


Boyd Roberts			boyd@necisa.ho.necisa.oz.au

``When the going gets wierd, the weird turn pro...''