Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rpi!crdgw1!barnett From: barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix Subject: Re: MacX and Ultrix 4.0 Message-ID: Date: 5 Mar 91 15:03:58 GMT References: Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com Reply-To: barnett@crdgw1.ge.com Organization: GE Corp. R & D, Schenectady, NY Lines: 23 In-reply-to: jtkohl@MIT.EDU's message of 1 Mar 91 20:57:29 GMT In article jtkohl@MIT.EDU (John T Kohl) writes: > Flame the vendor of MacX for using rexecd. Actually - someone told me to Flame DEC because of a bug in Ultrix 4.0 that is fixed in Ultrix 4.1. > [rshd is slightly better, in that it doesn't let you type a password, > but it does rely on IP addresses. They can be forged, but it takes more > work than it does to steal a password.] I don't quite agree. Anyone can unplug a machine that isn't in a locked room. And it's easier to change an IP address that it is to decode a password from several packets flying across a net. As long as the ethernet addess isn't cached it would be easier to crack rshd than rexecd. (Most people turn off their Mac's at night.) Also - the Mac's can select IP numbers dynamically. If this is done, rshd won't work. I will agree that Apple should support both protocols, like White Pine's X server for the Mac. -- Bruce G. Barnett barnett@crd.ge.com uunet!crdgw1!barnett