rlogin <> telnet

rlogin <> telnet

Post by Polar Be » Sun, 23 Jan 1994 09:21:04



What's the diff between rlogin and telnet, I mean, any adv or disadv when
both are useable? Thanks.

Polar Bear

 
 
 

rlogin <> telnet

Post by B.N.Blackmo » Sun, 23 Jan 1994 23:15:59


: What's the diff between rlogin and telnet, I mean, any adv or
: disadv when both are useable? Thanks.

Yes

1. rlogin is a protocol specificly designed to log on to another account
   on another machine, while telnet just provides a terminal link.

2. rlogin is often considered to be a security risk because of it allows
   people to log on without typing a password and without a good enough
   authentication system.

3. The telnet protocol, can allow more information to be passed about
   the 'environment' in which the user is coming from. If you have a
   new telnet and telnetd you can even log on to a remote account (with
   good authentication) if thats what the service is providing.

: Polar Bear

--
Brian Blackmore, The University of Kent at Canterbury, United Kingdom.
Beyond the shadow of a dream, who knows what lies.

 
 
 

rlogin <> telnet

Post by Dylan Northrup (P » Tue, 25 Jan 1994 02:37:06




>: What's the diff between rlogin and telnet, I mean, any adv or
>: disadv when both are useable? Thanks.

>Yes

[REASONS DELETED]

Well then, what is the difference between rlogin and rsh?  When I rsh
<machine> it seem to behave identically as if I has done an rlogin to the
machine.  What is the difference here?

*****************************************************************************

*    opinion?    *      a.k.a. Doc_X on irc and Xtrek         *    |\ /|    *

***************************************************************    |/ \|    *
*If it takes the death of me to make history * To think I get *    =====    *
*The whole world will remember my misery     * paid for this  *             *
*****************************************************************************

 
 
 

rlogin <> telnet

Post by John Beac » Tue, 25 Jan 1994 04:17:59


Quote:>   Well then, what is the difference between rlogin and rsh?  When I rsh
>   <machine> it seem to behave identically as if I has done an rlogin to the
>   machine.  What is the difference here?

                                                       rsh(1c)
   Name
     rsh - remote shell
   Syntax
     rsh host [-l username] [-n] command

     If you omit command, then instead of executing a single command, you are
     logged in on the remote host using rlogin(1c).

 
 
 

rlogin <> telnet

Post by Stefan Chakeri » Tue, 25 Jan 1994 07:06:24




Quote:

>Well then, what is the difference between rlogin and rsh?  When I rsh
><machine> it seem to behave identically as if I has done an rlogin to the
>machine.  What is the difference here?

rsh takes arguments to execute in a shell.  If no args are given, it
behaves as rlogin.  If rsh is invoked under a different name (as in, a
symbolic link) it will use that name as the machine name, too.

% ln -s /usr/ucb/rsh remotemach
% remotemach            # will log you in to remotemach

Look in /usr/hosts.


>*    opinion?    *      a.k.a. Doc_X on irc and Xtrek         *    |\ /|    *


what a stupid sig.

                                stef
--
Stefan Chakerian                       It's a trick.  Get an axe.

 
 
 

rlogin <> telnet

Post by Joe Emenak » Tue, 25 Jan 1994 15:04:26



>What's the diff between rlogin and telnet, I mean, any adv or disadv when
>both are useable? Thanks.

"rlogin" will try to "carry-over" some of your environment settings,
like your TERM and DISPLAY settings. Another nice thing, is that you can
avoid having to type in your password with "rlogin". Here's how:

When you try to "rlogin" to a machine, rlogin (among other things it
does when processing the request) checks for a file on the machine
you're trying to "rlogin" *to*. This file is called ".rhosts". It
contains a list of users and machines names who are to be "let in" to
your account without being asked for a password. It has the format of:

machine1.domain.edu  myname
othersite.eskimo.ak.usa myname2
etc.

For each machine, you put the name of the machine you're likely to
rlogin *from* and what your username is on that machine.

A few reminders:

        1 - Make sure that write-permissions (and probably
read-permissions as well) are turned off for everyone but you. You can
use "chmod 600 .rhosts". Rlogin might decide to not work if it senses
that other people have the ability to modify your .rhosts file.
Remember, if people can modify your .rhosts file, they can add their own
machine/username combo to the file and then login as *YOU*... so be very
careful about setting the permissions on the file!

        2 - Make sure to specify the machine name completely (as in,
machine.domain.edu) and not use the abbreviated one (as in, "machine").
This is because someone from another domain might be able to get into
your account if their machine name fits yours. For example, lets say you
have an entry like:

minyos5 pbear

in your .rhosts file. Well, (I'm not sure exactly if rlogin would really
let me get away with this, but I think it's possible) I could set up a
machine over here and call it minyos5 and give myself an account called
pbear and I might be able to get into your account. However, if your
entry read:

minyos5.xx.rmit.edu.au pbear

then, I wouldn't be able to get in... because it wouldn't match the one
over here of "minyos5.calpoly.edu".

Once again, I'm open for e-mail questions.

 
 
 

rlogin <> telnet

Post by Part » Tue, 25 Jan 1994 19:20:11



> 2. rlogin is often considered to be a security risk because of it allows
>    people to log on without typing a password and without a good enough
>    authentication system.

Is using rlogin in itself a security risk,
or is there a security risk only if you are using something like .rhosts
or hosts.equiv?

--

EDV-Zentrum, Universitaet fuer Bodenkultur
Nussdorfer Laende 11                      Please correct me, if I am wrong!
A-1190 Wien, Austria (Europe)             Make love, not flame wars.  :-)

 
 
 

rlogin <> telnet

Post by Carl Brew » Tue, 25 Jan 1994 19:40:21




Quote:

>Well then, what is the difference between rlogin and rsh?  When I rsh
><machine> it seem to behave identically as if I has done an rlogin to the
>machine.  What is the difference here?

man rsh

SYNOPSIS
     rsh [ -l username ] [ -n ] hostname [ command ]
     rsh hostname [ -l username ] [ -n ] [ command ]

     hostname [ -l username ] [ -n ] [ command ]

DESCRIPTION

        [snip 1 paragraph]

     If you omit command, instead of executing a single  command,
     rsh logs you in on the remote host using rlogin(1C).

Does no-one RTFM :-/

--
Carl Brewer                             Ph :61-9-380-1893 | #include \
Systems/Network Officer, Reid Library   Fax:61-9-380-1012 | <std_disclaimer.h>

Merlin, where are you?  Call your Dragon, to weave a mist ....

 
 
 

rlogin <> telnet

Post by B.N.Blackmo » Tue, 25 Jan 1994 21:49:23




>> 2. rlogin is often considered to be a security risk because of it
>> allows people to log on without typing a password and without a good
>> enough authentication system.
> Is using rlogin in itself a security risk, or is there a security
> risk only if you are using something like .rhosts or hosts.equiv?

Using rlogin/rsh is only a security risk if you are using something
like .rhosts and hosts.equiv. If you are not using either of these then
rlogin insists that you enter your password, so your account is still
secure.

On another point, it has been noted previously that rlogin passes more
of your environment that telnet does. This CAN be wrong, if you have
an up to date telnet and telnetd, since the latest versions allow you
to pass any part of your environment you like.

> --

> EDV-Zentrum, Universitaet fuer Bodenkultur
> Nussdorfer Laende 11                      Please correct me, if I am wrong!
> A-1190 Wien, Austria (Europe)             Make love, not flame wars.  :-)

--
Brian Blackmore, Darwin College, The University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.
Beyond the shadow of a dream who knows what lies
 
 
 

rlogin <> telnet

Post by Michael Lem » Sat, 29 Jan 1994 03:29:16





>On another point, it has been noted previously that rlogin passes more
>of your environment that telnet does. This CAN be wrong, if you have
>an up to date telnet and telnetd, since the latest versions allow you
>to pass any part of your environment you like.

What about eight bit connections?  I've never been able to make a telnet
connection that doesn't muck with the eighth bit.  rlogin -8 works fine
though.  Comments?

Michael
--
Michael Lemke
Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge UK

 
 
 

rlogin <> telnet

Post by Michael Lem » Sat, 29 Jan 1994 20:57:26




>> What about eight bit connections?  I've never been able to make a
>> telnet connection that doesn't muck with the eighth bit.  rlogin
>> -8 works fine though.  Comments?

>Its an option in the specification (rfc856) in fact its got the
>option number 0. Most telnet servers seem to support the option,
>but for some reason quite a few telnet clients do not, you may
>be able to find an option you can toggle from the telnet> prompt
>which will try and set this up.

>Telnet is an extendable protocol and thus it is possible to add
>new features as they become available, but because of this there
>can be some features that are just not available on one side or
>the other.

I see.  Sounds like Unix -- you can only rely on that it *might* be
there. Anyone know about Sun's telnet implementation?  After their
disaster with talk they probably don't have up-to-date telnet either.

Michael
--
Michael Lemke
Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge UK

 
 
 

rlogin <> telnet

Post by Casper H.S. D » Sat, 29 Jan 1994 21:30:32



>I see.  Sounds like Unix -- you can only rely on that it *might* be
>there. Anyone know about Sun's telnet implementation?  After their
>disaster with talk they probably don't have up-to-date telnet either.

BSD/SunOS telnet is 8-bit clean except for one character: 0xFF.
All SunOS telnet daemons are 8bit clean, the clients aren't, except
for the latest: the telnet client in Solaris 2.3.

Casper

 
 
 

rlogin <> telnet

Post by B.N.Blackmo » Sat, 29 Jan 1994 07:12:25







>> On another point, it has been noted previously that rlogin passes
>> more of your environment that telnet does. This CAN be wrong, if
>> you have an up to date telnet and telnetd, since the latest
>> versions allow you to pass any part of your environment you like.
> What about eight bit connections?  I've never been able to make a
> telnet connection that doesn't muck with the eighth bit.  rlogin
> -8 works fine though.  Comments?

Its an option in the specification (rfc856) in fact its got the
option number 0. Most telnet servers seem to support the option,
but for some reason quite a few telnet clients do not, you may
be able to find an option you can toggle from the telnet> prompt
which will try and set this up.

Telnet is an extendable protocol and thus it is possible to add
new features as they become available, but because of this there
can be some features that are just not available on one side or
the other.

--
Brian Blackmore, Darwin College, The University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.
Beyond the shadow of a dream who knows what lies

 
 
 

1. <><><> MOUNTING EXTENDED PARTITION <><><>

I have a 10 GB UDMA IDE drive formatted with Windows.  The first partition
is FAT32, and the second is NTFS.  I can successfully mount the first, but
not the second.  Any ideas?

Suse 7.2 on i86
the drive is mounted on /dev/hdc, and I CAN see hda1, but not hda2

2. GNU ASM documentation wanted ...

3. Wanted: <><><> Unix Specialist <><><>

4. NEC SILENTWRITER 95

5. LILO help <><><><><><>

6. ulimit fails in 2.4 ?

7. file transfer question: sun<=>telnet<=>terminal server<=>modem ?

8. KDevelop

9. Q: program <-> pipe or pty <-> telnet <-> remote computer

10. <Alt>+<key> = <Esc><key> ?

11. *{<><>}*Linux*Screen*Difficulties*{<><>}*

12. << <<anyone using dyn-html?>> >>