[Date Prev] [Date Index] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Index] [Thread Next]
Bryan Stansell bryan@conserver.com
Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:33:49 -0800 (PST)
Nice thought, but, I can tell you that it won't work (without code changes). The problem is the underlying "protocol" for finding a console. Assume conserver listens on port 782.... CLIENT (console) SERVER (conserver) --------------------------- --------------------------------------- connect to master conserver on port 782 accept connection on port 782 ask for console 'foo' if 'foo' is not local (distributed setup) respond with remote console hostname (console client starts over with new master conserver) else (is local) respond with random high-numbered port connect to conserver on random high-numbered port accept connection on high-numbered port authenticate, chat, etc... --------------------------- --------------------------------------- So, ask you can see, while the first connection is to a known port, the real work is all done with a random high-numbered port (each conserver child process opens it's own randomly-allocated socket) which is passed to the client dynamically. I hope this helped clear up what's going on and show you where the gotchas are. If you come up with a nice way to make the data encrypted, I'd love to hear about it (I and others have been wanting this feature for a long time). Hopefully I or someone will be able to implement encryption bits sometime soon (emphasis on "someone", knowing my schedule). Bryan Stansell On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 01:13:51PM +0000, Iain Rae wrote: > Hi, > > has anyone tried encrypting the session between console and conserver using > something like port forwarding under ssh or stunnel? > > > -- > Iain Rae > Computing Officer > Division of Informatics > Edinburgh University > > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > users@conserver.com > https://www.conserver.com/mailman/listinfo/users