nanog mailing list archives

Re: Suggestion for improved identD


From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra () scfn thpl lib fl us>
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 11:57:29 -0400

On Wed, May 20, 1998 at 08:26:28AM -0700, Dalvenjah FoxFire wrote:
I hate to break it to you, but not everyone runs Win95 or a Niftee NT
Box where people can forge ident to be whatever they please. Some of us
actually run REAL multiuser operating systems where the ident can be trusted.
[ ... ]
I don't want to hear any BS about how 'ident is unreliable' and 'ident
can't be trusted'. If it's been properly set up such that the ISP controls
what is returned rather than the user, or if the protocol is properly
redesigned to guarantee this, it *WILL* be trustworthy. And a particular
ISP can't be trusted to run a proper ident, then they get their entire
network blocked.

I hate to point this out, Dal, but what is being asserted is that "the
operator of the ident daemon is not under the same administrative span
of control as I am".  _That_ is why we say that it "cannot be
trusted".  Trust has a _very specific_ meaning there.

It _might_ be reliable... but then again, it might not.  Unless _you_
have a _contract_ with the _guy at the other end_, specifying that
he'll run an authenticated ident server, and guarantee on pain of
indemnity that it's accurate, you can't call it _trustworthy_.

There _is_ a difference between that and _useful_, however.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra () baylink com
Member of the Technical Staff             Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued
The Suncoast Freenet      "Two words: Darth Doogie."  -- Jason Colby,
Tampa Bay, Florida             on alt.fan.heinlein             +1 813 790 7592

Managing Editor, Top Of The Key sports e-zine ------------ http://www.totk.com


Current thread: