On UNIX users can have their personal .rhosts files which lists users
that are allowed to login into the account, in the form:
silver:~->2% cat .rhosts
+ michaelg
+ foobar
And it works as advertised on every UNIX that I tried (Solaris, IRIX).
However it looks like on Linux the behaviour is differ
You cannot use "+" instead of hostname in linux.
Rgds,
Vitaly
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Green
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 10:37 AM
To: ilug
Subject: rsh ~/.rhosts file
On UNIX users can have their personal .rhosts files w
Michael Green wrote:
On UNIX users can have their personal .rhosts files which lists users
that are allowed to login into the account, in the form:
silver:~->2% cat .rhosts
+ michaelg
+ foobar
First, let me state what should, by now, be obvious to anyone. Using
rshost is a security hole. it is
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 10:58:31 +0200, Shachar Shemesh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First, let me state what should, by now, be obvious to anyone. Using
> rshost is a security hole.
Shachar, you make very valid points here. Thank you.
In fact I realize very well (I hope I do) all the risks involved
Michael Green wrote:
I'm here to help them with
whatever they need and if they need rsh to be more productive (one of
their agruments) - so be it.
Well, I'll just say this, and then drop the subject. The main reason
people usually use rhosts is to allow login without entering a password.
SSH g
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 10:54:38 +0200, Karasik, Vitaly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You cannot use "+" instead of hostname in linux.
that did it! thanks!
--
Warm regards,
Michael Green
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Assistant Unix Admin
Division of Information Systems
Weizmann Institute of Scie
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 11:24:01AM +0200, Michael Green wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 10:58:31 +0200, Shachar Shemesh
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > First, let me state what should, by now, be obvious to anyone. Using
> > rshost is a security hole.
>
> Shachar, you make very valid points here.
Guys,
I'd really want to stop this discussion. I've got the answer I was looking for.
Thank you for that (Vitaly)!
I'm not in the mood to discuss here Weizmann's computing choices.
I'm really sorry it got down to this.
Thank you,
Michael
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 22:50:31 +0200, Tzafrir Cohen <[EMA
