full-disclosure - Re: Re: open telnet port

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4141C227.4060001@sdf.lonestar.org>
From: bkfsec at sdf.lonestar.org (Barry Fitzgerald)
Subject: Re: Re: open telnet port

Raj Mathur wrote:

>Remove low-bandwidth from the list of requirements, since ssh can
>compress traffic on the fly and reduce bandwidth consumption
>significantly.
>
>    
>
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?

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