Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!tcp-ip
From: bzs@BOSTONU.CSNET (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: IBMPC-based implementations
Message-ID: <8601190004.AA13547@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Date: Fri, 17-Jan-86 21:58:18 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8601190004.AA13547
Posted: Fri Jan 17 21:58:18 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 19-Jan-86 05:42:53 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 42
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa


>I have used the MIT PC/IP package with some degree of success.  I have
>largely quit using it, however, in favor of serial protocols like Kermit
>because of various problems like:
>
>	1.  Can't upload a file unless it already exists.
>	2.  Can't upload a file unless it is accessible by everyone.
>	3.  Occasional bit errors.
>
>What I would really like is rcp, rsh, and rlogin on a PC.  Let me
>know if you find such.
>Thomas N. Anderson      ...uw-beaver!teltone!tna 

Obviously your problem is not really PC/IP but the way TFTP works. A while
back I modified our 4.2bsd TFTP to add the following capability:

	On a WRQ or a RRQ if there are strings past the mode
	they are assumed to be a login-name/password to be used,
	the fork from the server changes to that person's home
	directory and sets itself to be that user (setuid/setgid
	in UNIX.) Otherwise the default rules apply.

For example:

	RRQ thesis/chapter1\0netascii\0bzs\0passwd\0
(where \0 means a null byte)

I needed this because we had lisp machines and my own IP/UDP/TFTP
implementations for the 3B2 and the mentioned restrictions would be,
well, too restrictive for use, they didn't have TCP. It's all
backwards compatible, if I were you I would consider this with your
administration (there are security problems but they are worse in my
opinion the old way, in fact my server currently *demands* a legal
login/password, I just wouldn't run it at all without the addition.)

It requires a few minor changes to server and client, I would suggest it
(is this too far out of spec to be accepted? I think TFTP is almost
useless w/o it for the user these days. The TFTP RFC also mentions that
extensions are appreciated, here's one...[I realize diskless nodes are
using TFTP to boot, that's a slightly different issue but manageable.])

	-Barry Shein, Boston University