Xref: utzoo comp.windows.misc:863 comp.sys.next:1070 comp.sys.mac:24505 comp.cog-eng:764
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!mcnc!ecsvax!dukeac!bet
From: bet@dukeac.UUCP (Bennett Todd)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.misc,comp.sys.next,comp.sys.mac,comp.cog-eng
Subject: Re: One Step... (long!)
Message-ID: <1179@dukeac.UUCP>
Date: 29 Dec 88 17:20:49 GMT
References: <263@gloom.UUCP> <4498@xenna.Encore.COM> <268@gloom.UUCP>
Reply-To: bet@dukeac.UUCP (Bennett Todd)
Organization: Radiology, Duke Med. Center, Durham, NC
Lines: 13

In article <268@gloom.UUCP> cory@gloom.UUCP (Cory Kempf) writes:
>[...]
>It does bring up a point... user verification over a network from
>untrusted hosts.  But that is a thread that is better suited for
>comp.security.  

Everytime I get concerned about user verification over an insecure network
from untrusted clients I go back and reread kerberos/doc/dialogue, then I feel
better. I think this one is a solved problem, at least in principle; applying
it is something that folks will or won't get around to, depending on their
perception of their needs.

-Bennett