Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: Re: Re: open telnet port
From: Barry Fitzgerald <bkfsec () sdf lonestar org>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:03:03 -0400
Raj Mathur wrote:
I would not remove low-bandwidth from the list. Compressing the connection requires further CPU consumption, and if the requirement is both low bandwidth and low CPU consumption, then you obviously can't offload more on the CPU, right?Remove low-bandwidth from the list of requirements, since ssh can compress traffic on the fly and reduce bandwidth consumption significantly.
Note: I also said that we're talking about a situation where sniffing isn't an issue. These are few and far between, but they do exist. In this case, any added CPU/bandwidth/whatever loss is simply waste.
-Barry _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- Re: Re: Re: Re: open telnet port, (continued)
- Re: Re: Re: Re: open telnet port ktabic (Sep 10)
- Re: Re: Re: Re: open telnet port Andrew Farmer (Sep 10)
- Re: Re: Re: Re: open telnet port Gary E. Miller (Sep 10)
- Re: Re: Re: Re: open telnet port Andrew Farmer (Sep 10)
- Re: Re: Re: Re: open telnet port Gary E. Miller (Sep 11)
- Re: Re: Re: Re: open telnet port Andrew Farmer (Sep 11)
- Re: Re: Re: Re: open telnet port Gary E. Miller (Sep 12)
- Re: Re: Re: Re: open telnet port ktabic (Sep 11)
- Re: Re: Re: open telnet port Barry Fitzgerald (Sep 09)
- Re: Re: Re: open telnet port Raj Mathur (Sep 09)
- Re: Re: Re: open telnet port Barry Fitzgerald (Sep 10)
- Re: Re: open telnet port A.J. (Sep 09)