Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!cedman
From: cedman@lynx.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: Duplicating ASCII bel in the tty driver (was Re: Changing tty drivers)
Message-ID: <CEDMAN.90Oct25082310@lynx.ps.uci.edu>
Date: 25 Oct 90 15:23:12 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> <1894@necisa.ho
Organization: non serviam
Lines: 63
Nntp-Posting-Host: lynx.ps.uci.edu
In-reply-to: boyd@necisa.ho.necisa.oz's message of 25 Oct 90 00:26:32 GMT

I am getting pretty tired of defending an idea which wasn't even my idea.
The only reason I defended it was that I thought it was a cute idea and
the arguments made against it so far weren't quite as convincing as those
who proposed the thought.

In article <1894@necisa.ho.necisa.oz> boyd@necisa.ho.necisa.oz (Boyd Roberts) writes:
   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?

I do not present a standard interface. I do not think that this ideas will
sweep all UNIX systems in the land and be standard by next Wednesday. I do
belive that you are clever enough to figure out after having used a system
a few times (and maybe even <gasp !> read the papers you get with an account)
whether it has this security feature.

   >
   >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.

I did NOT say that they are no security problem. I did say that for reason
I outlined in another article a few days ago, they are LESS of a security
problem, than public terminals. I gave a list of different security measures
you can apply to them. Other people have rejected the entire idea
because it would be terrible to apply them to dialup lines (yes, you can not
do this as it breaks comm protocolls). And yes , I am being serious.

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

Now what does this mean ? In the last weeks while this discussion raged
here almost all proposals this group (supposedly by writen and read by
the greatest of unix wizards), ranged from the perfectly foolish to the
impracticable. The only one (of those which I read) which had any merit
this one, altough I admit that it is NOT a pancaea. Now please describe
how your scheme of "better user authentication" would work without assuming
equipment and programms on both ends of the lines, which both you and I
know won't be standard for the next 5 years.

BTW, in my prepubescent youth I used to be a hacker (in the sense of someone
who enters computer systems around the world without knowledge or permission
of the owners/operators of the system by the use of tricks like the above),
so I have SOME idea what I am talking about.

	Carl Edman



Theorectial Physicist,N.:A physicist whose   | Send mail
existence is postulated, to make the numbers |  to
balance but who is never actually observed   | cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu
in the laboratory.                           | edmanc@uciph0.ps.uci.edu