"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Telnet has worse security than even a buggy miserably fake ssh. > > Telnet has _no_ security. It doesn't have fake security, which you > get by using crappy random bits and Open SSH. That is a huge > difference. Open SSH was designed for security, telnet was _not_.
What? So you are saying that telnet is better than a fake ssh? Why? I thought you stand up for security?! At best, you can certainly argue that the fake ssh should be well documented, but this is no reason for exclusion.
