Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Encryption Security

Kerberos Outside the US? 65

Posted by Cliff
from the encryption-for-the-masses dept.
v1z asks: "I'm administrating a small LAN with semi-public terminals and have been trying to locate a usable version of kerberos, that is available for use in Norway (ie outside the US). I've been looking for the bones, and e-bones package without success, and I'm wondering what I've missed? Is there no working kerberos.v5-like system available outside the US? Kerberos is appealing because it uses secret-key cryptocraphy within a good design, simplifying and removing many concerns with asymetric encryption, and because most ppl more easyily grasp the security-issues involved. On a side note: windows 2000 is said to incorporate kerberos.v5 - how does this relate to US-export-regualtions?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kerberos Outside the US?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Just curious is there such a way using kerberos on X environment? or perhaps using kerberos with NIS?
  • In terms of running Kerberized client software there is probably no advantage of one operating system over another. As for running a Kerberos keyserver, I would say OpenBSD is likely to be a superior choice than most (if not all) other operating systems. This is because the keyserver is the major weak link in the Kerberos chain: if the key server is compromised then all user's passwords are also immediately compromised. Therefore a system like OpenBSD which attains a very high level of security is probably better than other general purpose systems, even if these systems (like Linux and FreeBSD) can be made quite secure.
  • So, am I correct in understanding that you are not downloading kerberos because it is a US-based project, and downloading it would break US export restrictions? If it were me in your position, I would say "who cares?" and download it anyways. Would it be illegal? Yes. Would it be immoral? No. Would it be harming anyone, in any way? No. Would it be dangerous to you? No. It's obvious to most people that US crypto export regulations are stupid. So why respect them? From my point of view, it seems much more right to do things based on my morals, not based on what a few people in the government want me to do. Disclaimer: I'm not trying to criticize people for following the law in these cases, it's just my opinion that stupid laws deserve to be broken. In the end, I think all people should do what's right for them, wether that means following the law, or breaking it.

    --

  • Win2k U.S Edition (128bit) encryption has been tested with MIT Kerberos 5 but I havent seen any info about the international encryption version. But with the recent developments in the US crypto policy there might no longer exist.

    As for the myth that Windows 2000 "supports" kerberos... it doesn't. It uses kerberos as its main authenthication method...
    'It's kind of fun to do the impossible.'
  • ... which you can find at at a non-US site [pdc.kth.se].

    --thi

  • I don't want to join one side of the fight or the other, but how is it that Kerberos is more suited to being implented on OpenBSD rather than FreeBSD? Kerberos is apart from the OS, afterall, and any information as to how in implement it on any OS should be treated equally. Yeah, OpenBSD is more secure out of the box, but that's about it in terms of how applicable this is to that...
  • DAMN! bout time I found this. I was wondering what ever happened to replay. I went to the site one day and sure enough I got the replay tv thing. It really pissed me off too ;) Thanks for this link.
  • Here's some more info from the Win2k help file:

    Kerberos V5 authentication
    Kerberos V5 is the primary security protocol for authentication within a domain. The Kerberos V5 protocol verifies both the identity of the user and network services. This dual verification is known as mutual authentication.

    How Kerberos V5 works
    The Kerberos V5 authentication mechanism issues tickets for accessing network services. These tickets contain encrypted data, including an encrypted password, that confirms the user's identity to the requested service. Except for entering a password or smartcard credentials, the entire authentication process is invisible to the user.

    An important service within Kerberos V5 is the Key Distribution Center (KDC). The KDC runs on each domain controller as part of Active Directory, which stores all client passwords and other account information.

    The Kerberos V5 authentication process works as follows:
    1. The user on a client system, using a password or a smart card, authenticates to the KDC.
    2. The KDC issues a special ticket-granting ticket (TGT) to the client. The client system uses this TGT to access the ticket-granting service (TGS), which is part of the Kerberos V5 authentication mechanism on the domain controller.
    3. The TGS then issues a service ticket to the client.
    4. The client presents this service ticket to the requested network service. The service ticket proves both the user's identity to the service and the service's identity to the user.

    Kerberos V5 interoperability
    Windows 2000 supports two types of Kerberos V5 interoperability:
    • A trust relationship can be established between a domain and an MIT-based Kerberos realm. This means that a client in a Kerberos realm can authenticate to an Active Directory domain to access network resources in that domain.
    • Within a domain, UNIX clients and servers can have Active Directory accounts, and therefore obtain authentication from a domain controller.

    For more information on interoperability between the MIT-based versions of the Kerberos protocol and the Windows 2000 implementation of the Kerberos protocol, see the Windows 2000 Resource Kit.
  • Heimdal is very good. It would, of course, have been illegal for the MIT Kerberos team to have given them any source, but there's nothing wrong with seeing whether two packages will talk to one another...and the folks at MIT spent considerable time doing such testing with the Heimdal team.

    Incidentally, don't bother with single-DES Kerberos; it can be cracked in real time. 3DES is good. It may implement other encryption as well -- I'm not sure.

    --

  • i am not an expert on kerberos. all i did was installing the debian package of kerberos4 once and look a bit in the doku. while not sending cleartext passwords over the wire, what i did not like was that it was open to "man in the middle attacks" in some situations. is kerberos 5 better in this area? also it did not enclude any encryption shut authentication. when i have to replace my applications and deamons i want encryption too or else it does not seem worth the trouble in most cases... is encryption part of V5?

    what i would like to see is
    • something like kerberos to be able to have cnetralized authentication but it should not be weaker then SSH (that is not open to man in the middle attacks)
    • integratated encryption. probably extending ssh and or ssl
    • flexible and secure ways to deal with cross realm authentication and secure and easy ways to have several backup authentication servers..

    does anyone know how good this is handled in kerberos 5?
    greetings from vienna, austria.

    mond
  • OpenBSD? FreeBSD?

    It's an install option with FreeBSD. (OpenBSD too, probably.)
  • FreeBSD does ship with Kerberos on the CDs IIRC. it should be in /cdrom/des/, and is available as an install time option or can later be installed from /stand/sysinstall. Even thought they ship international, they put it on CDs. Apparently there's some precedent for allowing this in the part of California where Walnut Creek is, and they've supposedly consulted lawyers on this issue a number of times. Can anyone provide a link to the legal issue perhaps?
  • I thought SSH only dealt with secure remote shells, while Kerberos provides a programmatic API.

    Kerberos is used as an optional authentication component with various database vendors, transaction processors, etc. I've never seen mention of SSH as an option for any of the tools I've used.

    Does anyone have examples of open and commercial source products that use SSH for centralized authentication the way Kerberos is?
  • by alannon (54117)
    I recommend that anybody interested in seamless IP encryption that supports any IP application without any changes look into IPSec. There's a free implementation called FreeS/WAN for linux. For PCs and Macs there are free client-side implementations availible in the form of PGP Freeware's PGPNet module.

    IPSec can easily be set up to support an entire Internet subnet, where it encrypts all data between IPSec-enabled gateways, or encryption and authentication directly between two IPSec configured hosts.

    As an added bonus, the Internet Engineering Task Force has included IPSec in the IPv6 specification, so there's a very high chance the protocol will become widely adopted in the near future.

    FreeS/WAn can be found here [xs4all.nl] and PGP Freeware here [mit.edu].
  • Nice summary. I don't suppose you could be convinced to take over the
    ODP Kerberos page? It's at www.dmoz.org [dmoz.org] and could do with a well-informed editor...
  • what do you think law is about without legal philosophy? In the absence of reasonable law the ciitzenry will select what they can live with and ignore the rest. That is a lesson of history. It is pointless to beat people up verbally for doing this. There is a large difference between fighting tyranny and ripping off other developers.
  • Perhaps the Kerberos incorporation in win2000 is
    only downloadable as a software update from within the US. I believe the same goes for FreeBSD.
  • I just ordered my release copy of Windows 2000 direct from Microsoft last week. In the order confirmation the Product Description reads as follows:

    Microsoft® Windows® 2000 Professional English Version/Product Upgrade North America CD Encryption Coded Software

    I assume this means that there will be other non-North American releases and that it will have to do with the level of Encryption bundled with them.



  • There's a large difference between licenses put on a product by the creators, and licenses forced on a product by the government.
  • OpenBSD notes on the Canadian Export Control List [openbsd.org]
    Here is a link to where Marc Plumb has drawn some general conclusions about exporting crypto from Canada [mcmaster.ca]
    It appears that crypto that is public domain has absolutely no restriction as far as the Canadian Government is concerned, but if it originated from the USA, then it has to be approved, and if its not public domain (free) then a permit must be acquired. Interesting to see that the US gov has charged people for exporting crypto from Canada. [mcmaster.ca] (Canadian and american?)
    Oh, and I'm a high tax paying Canadian myself.
  • Perhaps there is a philosphical difference...

    But a license violation is not a question of philosophy, unless you can get the judge to listen to arguments about whether the rule of law should prevail (fat chance!).

    Many in the Open Source community seem to take pride in holding the moral high ground over closed/proprietary development efforts. As if to say "my code is so much better than yours that I'm willing to subject it to peer review -- and give it away for little or no money" implies and automatically confers some sort of moral superiority.

    Well, I happen to agree that contributing to the welfare of a community is a noble undertaking. However, if 'members' of the community behave in dishonorable ways towards others, whether or not those others are part of the community, it reflects poorly on all of us. Not only that, but it sets a precedent within the community, and can begin to spread. If we can ignore the license restrictions of an application that 'had a [draconian] license forced onto it by the government', why can't we ignore the license of software that's 'too expensive', or software who's manufacturer 'is too rich', or who's author you've never met (so he'll never know the difference)? In other words, if the line is not exactly where the copyright holder's license says it is, then where is it, and when have we stepped across?

    Judicious application of the Golden Rule (i.e., treat others as I would like to be treated) might give you a different perspective. Instead of proclaiming 'Everyone does it, why shouldn't I?!', try asking 'what if everyone did it, and it was my property being misappropriated?'


  • what do you think law is about without legal philosophy?
    An arbitrary set of rules that we must either live by or be prepared for the consequences of violating. I wish that we (in the U.S.) lived in a system where a sound and consistent philosphy prevailed.


    In the absence of reasonable law the ciitzenry will select what they can live with and ignore the rest. That is a lesson of history.
    An interesting point. History also shows that unreasonable law can be turned back upon the citizenry. How many millions have been slaughtered in the 20th century under the auspices of 'unreasonable' laws? Should we not work to change laws that are unreasonable? If you don't agree with a law, work to change it from within the system. Civil disobedience should be considered a tool to bring out when other actions within the system turn out to be ineffectual. But applied in a manner where others suffer the consequences, civil disobedience is irresponsible.


    It is pointless to beat people up verbally for doing this.
    My intent was to discourse, not to assault.


    There is a large difference between fighting tyranny and ripping off other developers.
    I agree wholeheartedly. Illegal use of software, in direct violation of its license, is a far cry from fighting tyrrany.

  • I think you will find that canada was excluded from export controls. But in any case the old export controls regime has just been replaced. Please see for details. http://204.193.246.62/public.nsf/docs/60D6B47456BB 389F852568640078B6C0
  • Here at KTH we use Kerberos all the time, and we don't have any firewalls. That makes things a lot easier for me; being able to access the site from outside is really useful.

    -- Oddity - AFS and Kerberos in his Linux box

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Kerberos is available outside the US hence avoiding export regs. Take a look at zedz.net (the guys formerly known as replay.com (based in the Netherlands I beleive). It's the best non-US crypto download site around IMHO

    ftp://ftp.zedz.net/pub/crypto/crypto/APPS/kerber os

    Have Fun
  • Have a look at Heimdal [pdc.kth.se]

    I noticed this as it just became a debian package

  • While, I haven't used Heimdahl, the version of Kerberos IV which KTH produced was excellent, worlds better than the MIT release. I'd expect Heimdahl to be similar, although from what I've heard the current cuts are still a little rough.
  • If you want to use Kerberos IV you're almost certainly better off getting KTH Kerberos IV, which is much more up to date than that included in any of the BSDs (unless any of them have moved to KTH, last I knew they all used a derivitive of the original MIT release). You can get the KTH distribution at http://www.pdc.kth.se/kth-krb/
  • I think this is due to Kerberos being much more cumbersome than ssh to set up, but Americans not having a choice - RSA is still patented there, so to use SSH you need a commerical license. This will change on september 29th.

    Eivind.

  • We're mostly on MIT krb5 v1.0.6. The full source distribution (including all the crypto parts) is available in the UK. See the Kerberos FAQ (can be found at http://www.lib.ox.ac.uk/internet/news/faq/archive/ kerberos-faq.general.html)

    I haven't found 1.1 outside the US so far. But 1.0.6 is working very nicely for us (with a few tweaks that I keep meaning to put up for download).

    Others have mentioned Heimdal. I investigated it about a year ago. But we were transitioning from a MIT Kerberos v4 installation, our site is moderately large (hundreds of machines, thousands of users), and at that time Heimdal did not seem to be up to the job, and the documentation was very sketchy. It might have improved though (I wish I had the time to keep up with its development).

    David Wragg
    dpw@doc.ic.ac.uk
  • That's just the beginning - the real power of Kerberos is that it defines an API which can be added to *any* application that wants strong mutual authentication between the client and server.

    This means that kerberos-enhanced CVS allows the CVS server to identify you -- and you to be sure that your CVS server wasn't hijacked via DNS or TCP/IP attacks.

    It allows your printer to confirm your identity... and you to confirm that your remote printer hasn't been hijacked by a competitor.

    It allows you to know exactly what system is feeding your remote tape backup drive... or requesting to restore sensitive accounting information or source code.

    It allows your database to know who is access it... and the user to know that the database hasn't been hijacked by a rogue site offering ludicrious information designed to drive your customers away... or you into backruptcy.

    And all of these applications can negotiate session-based encryption.

    I could continue, but my fingers are getting tired. The point should be clear: Kerberos packages, by themselves, are best viewed as enabling tools, not the final destination.

    BTW, the best description I've seen of a fully Kerberized site is that it doesn't require a firewall -- all of the applications have been sufficiently armored that a firewall offers no additional benefit. That's a bit harsh, but it does reflect the conservative approach that the firewall should be the *last* thing added to your network security model, not the first.
  • Take a step back and consider not-so-distant history.

    In the past, if someone wanted something like Kerberos they would have to *mail* a request to the authors and request physical media back. Even after web browsers became common, they had to email a request to the authors who would then explicitly decide whether to grant access.

    In contrast, most crypto sites today allow you to fill out an online form and you are granted immediate access. However the license now adds that restrictive clause.

    If people started openly violating the terms of the license the authors would not say "oh well, we didn't really care about it anyway." They would say "damn it!" and remove web access to the material. You want a copy of the source code, you'll have to mail a copy of your passport & and signed statement of intent to comply with the laws. The alternative is to have the Feds take it to court and have even stricter limits put on access to the material, e.g., the person must show up in person to get the material.
  • Granted, but in that case you're using the firewall to accomplish a specific task - prevent DoS attacks, instead of using it as Magic Condom that will protect your site from your own recklessness.

    Unfortunately, in the real world there are a lot of MIS and IT directors who believe that the average run-of-the-mill MSCE actually knows what he's talking about... and is more grounded in reality than his "ivory tower" Unix sysadmins. So they refuse to use "sudo" or "crack" and depend on a firewall for all of their security. *Those* are the people who should add a firewall last.
  • MIT Kerberos may become exportable in the next few weeks; I'm sure the lawyers are looking at it. It's definitely "free software" and primarily uses DES encryption (56 bit symmetric keys).

    Also, I have put up unofficial Debian packages on my web site, and I know that someone at the MIT site is looking at updating the "contrib" section to include the recent work.

    So don't rule out MIT Kerberos yet... or packages you haven't heard about. I first offered my MIT Kerberos packages probably close to two years ago but my packages were rejected because 1) I'm an American and 2) Debian's maintainer process was beginning it's long descent until the innermost circle of Hell. Among other things, that means that I have a lot of experience with a Linux-based KDC (many other packagers are using foreign KDCs) and Kerberos-enhanced Linux packages. Top of my plate - either converted or soon to convert, are CVS, LPRNG, Postgresql, and possibly XDM (to acquire ticket but not set up MIT-KERBEROS-5 authentication.)
  • As a packager, and someone who lives in the same small town as Phil Zimmermann (Boulder, Colorado), let me be the first to congratulate you on being responsible for denying others Debian packages for MIT Kerberos for almost two years.

    YOU can "take a stand" because it's not your fat ass on the line. The unfortunate fact is that if I make packages available when I know that some people plan to violate the law, I know that the feds can come after me. They DON'T have to actually file charges to make my life a living hell, and in fact they will do everything possible to *avoid* filing charges since certain legal protections only kick in to defendents, not people "merely" under investigation for committing a crime.

    Since Phil Zimmermann lived in Boulder at the time (and may still live here, although I haven't seen him for awhile) the local press covered his story long after the national press dropped it. This is not an obscure risk that happened to someone, sometime, this is a concrete risk that happened to someone I (casually) know and which caused him a large amount of inconvenience and significant personal expense.

    If you want to take a stand, grow some balls and take your own fscking stand. BUT DON'T ACT IN AN IRRESPONSIBLE MANNER THAT EXPOSES OTHERS TO SIGNIFICANT LEGAL RISK JUST SO YOUR SPINELESS SOUL CAN SLEEP WELL AT NIGHT!

    Finally, never forget that your zealotry made it risky (even impossible) for many of us moderates to work from within the system. The Feds do not make examples out of well-financed opponents with good connections, they try to cut out the weaker members of the herd. That's why most of the court cases have focused on graduate students. We could have tried to quietly loosen our restrictions to the point that the government would realize that liberalization was a fait accompli, but because of European airheads we were never "out of the spotlight" enough to take big risks.
  • Downloadable implementations at Munitions! [vipul.net] or at a faster UK mirror [munitions.net] all outside the US.

    - Ferric
  • by Void (2442) <frank@nospam.openminds.be> on Sunday January 16, 2000 @01:17AM (#1368224) Homepage
    OpenBSD has no (i think) export restrictions, as it is .CA based, not .US.

    OpenBSD includes Kerberos, more info http://www.openbsd.org ....
  • by elflord (9269) on Sunday January 16, 2000 @08:11AM (#1368225) Homepage
    No. SSH doesn't do this kind of thing. This is why it is not redundandant to use ssh and kerberos. ssh is your login shell ( and port forwarding tool ), and kerberos takes care of authentication for everything including ssh. One can also use pam with ssh.

    However, it's not true that ssh is just a secure remote shell. Because of it's port forwarding features, ssh is a secure remote anything.

  • by Zaffle (13798) on Sunday January 16, 2000 @02:55AM (#1368226) Homepage Journal
    Well, I don't know about Kerberos, but SSH is used a lot at places I contract to. OpenSSH [openssh.com] is a free version of the Secure Shell suite. It uses public/private key encryption, aswell as symetric encryption.

    Its availible to non-us citizens too. Lots of info on it can be found at the url above, but basically, its a good thing(tm).

  • by Jonas Öberg (19456) <jonas@gnu.org> on Sunday January 16, 2000 @02:03AM (#1368227) Homepage
    I would recommend that you use Heimdal [pdc.kth.se]. It's a Kerberos V implementation made primarily in Sweden.
  • by coyote-san (38515) on Sunday January 16, 2000 @10:45AM (#1368228)
    Here's a quick comparison of Kerberos & SSH, suitable for viewgraphs for PHBs. :-)

    Kerberos provides strong mutual authentication, plus limited encryption. SSH provides strong encryption, but limited authentication. (SSH authenticates hosts during initial connection, and optionally users connecting to sshd, but not arbitrary client/server authentication.)

    Kerberos uses three-party authentication - client, server and domain controller. SSH uses two-party authentication - client and server. (Prior to the government's attempts to escrow encryption keys and Phil Zimmermann's response, three-party authentication was the norm. With Kerberos, the KDC can be run by the employer,
    university, or household!)

    Local Kerberos security breaches (e.g., exposure of /etc/krb5.keytab) can be handled globally by a single change at the KDC. Local SSH security breaches (e.g., exposure of /etc/ssh/ssh_host_key) must be handled at each site which connects to it.

    Global Kerberos security breaches (e.g., exposure of a */admin password) affect everyone within the domain, so good KDC security is crucial. Global SSH security breaches are impossible.

    Kerberos uses DES session encryption by default, although some implementations support 3DES and IDEA. SSH uses IDEA (iirc), so SSH encryption is somewhat stronger "out of the box."

    Kerberos does not support "tunneling". SSH does.

    Kerberos PAM modules exist, but all I have seen to date violate the Kerberos security model and should never be used. I'm not sure if SSH PAM modules exist, but again I'm sure they violate the SSH security model and should never be used.

    Kerberos access can be mediated by "digital certificates" and smart cards. I expect the same could be same of SSH, although I am not certain.

    Finally, Kerberos-enhanced SSH exists although I am not familiar with the details of it. However, the important thing is that a site may use both SSH and Kerberos, if desired.

  • by coyote-san (38515) on Sunday January 16, 2000 @11:06AM (#1368229)
    Kerberos 5 changed the protocol in a significant manner in order to prevent certain attacks, although I can't recall if was "man in the middle" off of the top of my head. That's why it's Kerberos 5, instead of 4.1. :-)

    As for encryption, I've been using encrypted ktelnet, kftp, krlogin and cvs without any problems. It's possible that the package was built with user-level encryption turned off for some reason.
  • by coyote-san (38515) on Sunday January 16, 2000 @08:56AM (#1368230)
    Sure, the MIT source has been exported.


    But anyone who uses it violates the terms of the MIT license since it explicitly requires that the users be domestic (US and Canada) or have acquired it via a legal export.


    It's easy to say "well, I don't care I'm gonna run it anyway!", but then where do you stop? Do you use GPL (not LGPL) libraries because you can? Do you reuse GPL source in your proprietary code?



    If we want our licenses to be respected by others, we MUST respect the licenses ourself. Otherwise we'll find ourself in the same position as the proprietary software known to pirate other companies' software -- an obvious hyprocrite who has absolutely no moral grounds to complain when it's our ox being gored.

  • by coyote-san (38515) on Sunday January 16, 2000 @09:26AM (#1368231)
    First, a bit of background information that you may be missing. Kerberos *NEVER* sends any password across the network in plaintext, and only transmits the encrypted password when the password is actively changed. Kerberos uses an encrypted challenge/response technique between the user's host and the Kerberos domain controller, so any file-based approach like NIS distributed password files will never be kerberized.

    One of the major changes in Kerberos 5 is support for X authentication "MIT-KERBEROS-5". This allows you to use Kerberos principal names to control access to your system, e.g.,

    $ xhost +:krb5:coyote@LOCAL

    This grants access to your system to a particular user regardless of location. The other authentication methods generally grant access to all users of a particular system, or require that you manually exchange authentication information.

    Kerberos 5 XDM should also acquire Kerberos 5 credentials for you, if properly configured.

    HOWEVER, before you run off and start recompiling xfree86 you should be aware that the current version has been "broken" for some time, at least with the current MIT Kerberos API. You might be able to get it to work with an older version, but that would force you to retain known security bugs as well.

    Because of XFree86 4 and the changing US export rules some of us are revisiting the problem and XDM patches should be available soon. MIT-KERBEROS-5 support is a different matter, since one of the biggest items on everyone's wish list is the ability to specify Kerberos encryption on the wire. This would people working from home to use encrypted wire protocol when connecting to their office via xDSL or cable modems.

    Kerberos 4 does not support MIT-KERBEROS-5 authentication, although it might be patched to collect a Kerberos credentials for you.

    Finally, I'm sure it's possible to modify NIS to require Kerberos authentication (and encryption), but AFAIK nobody's done it. However, in this case NIS would be an application with Kerberos enhancements, not a Kerberos login mechanism.
  • by Get Behind the Mule (61986) on Sunday January 16, 2000 @01:41AM (#1368232)
    I'm not entirely sure why, but Kerberos is dead in Europe. For secure connections at my ISP in Germany, we use SSH exclusively.

    I would guess that it has something to do with license and/or export restrictions, although I frankly don't know what the conditions for using Kerberos are. SSH, on the other hand, was developed in Finland, and at least versions 1.x are free (as in both beer and speech).
  • by the way (22503) on Sunday January 16, 2000 @03:19AM (#1368233)
    Windows 2000 128 bit security can be downloaded from the WindowsUpdate web site, which is linked directly from the start menu (I'd provide a URL, but you can't see the site without using Win2k or forging your HTTP headers). It is restricted to US downloads. AFAIK, the same security is available in export copies at the 40 bit (or 56 bit?) level.

    Of course, you can download the 128 bit version by just going through a US based proxy, but I don't know whether the resultant code would be legally usable in Norway. (I mention this only for completeness, and don't in anyway recommend or sanction that approach).

    BTW, Win2k VPN security seems pretty good now--the old broken PPTP protocols have been completely replaced, as far as I can tell. Mind you, I'm sure Schneir (sp?) will find a way to break it within a couple of days of official release! (It is MS Encryption, after all...)
  • by jeroenb (125404) on Sunday January 16, 2000 @01:47AM (#1368234) Homepage
    OpenBSD Kerberos(1):

    The Kerberos system authenticates individual users in a network environment. After authenticating yourself to Kerberos, you can use network utilities such as rlogin, rcp, and rsh without having to present passwords to remote hosts and without having to bother with .rhosts files. Note that these utilities will work without passwords only if the remote machines you deal with support the Kerberos system.

    For more, read it online at http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bi n/man.cgi?query=kerberos [openbsd.org].

  • by Detritus (11846) on Sunday January 16, 2000 @01:31AM (#1368235) Homepage
    FreeBSD has a version of Kerberos that is available outside the US. From the FreeBSD 3.3 release notes:

    The latest versions of export-restricted code for FreeBSD (2.0C or later) (eBones and secure) are also being made available at the following locations. If you are outside the U.S. or Canada, please get secure (DES) and eBones (Kerberos) from one of the following foreign distribution sites:

    South Africa

    ftp://ftp.internat.FreeBSD.ORG/pub/FreeBSD
    ftp://ftp2.internat.FreeBSD.ORG/pub/FreeBSD

    Brazil

    ftp://ftp.br.FreeBSD.ORG/pub/FreeBSD

    Finland

    ftp://nic.funet.fi/pub/unix/FreeBSD/eurocrypt

Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon compounds. Biochemistry is the study of carbon compounds that crawl. -- Mike Adams

Working...