On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 05:46:55PM +0000, James Wilkinson wrote: > Jeff Kinz wrote: > > Any IT dept that equates sshd to a server is either not up to snuff > > technically (and in a really bad way.), or they are being duplicitous. > > (Thats another word for lying) > > If it's open to the outside world? Yes, I'd call that a server. There ssh = "Secure Shell" So this is basically a terminal session thats being encrypted (A good thing, TM) for security reasons. (yes - you can do VNC or X over an ssh link too, that was not it major purpose and even in those cases it is still a terminal session) So being able to access the command line of any machine remotely means its a server - by this definition every windows machine is also a server. That does not match up with the apparent behavior of that local It dept. Perhaps the term "service" and "server" are being used interchangeably by that local IT dept I do major amounts of work via ssh and I do consider it a service but I don't consider the ssh daemon to be a "server" any more than I consider a machines ability to receive email to be a "server" rather than a "service" > have been remote security vulnerabilities in both OpenSSH and SSH.com's > offerings. And I'd want to be sure that the box was being looked after, > had sensible passwords, and was being patched promptly. Sure. As with all boxes. -- http://www.fedoranews.org Jeff Kinz, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA.
