| |
I0OJJ > JNOS2 02.11.19 20:02l 82 Lines 3580 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 2BTI0OJJ_002
Read: DF7EAV DJ6UX GUEST
Subj: Re: This BID thing and DUPES and stuff
Path: DB0FHN<OE2XZR<OE1XAB<HG8LXL<XE1FH<ZL2BAU<EI2GYB<GB7CIP<I0OJJ
Sent: 191102/1744z @:I0OJJ.ITA.EU [Rome] obcm1.08-3-g9b42
From: I0OJJ @ I0OJJ.ITA.EU (Gustavo)
To: JNOS2 @ WW
X-Info: Sent with login password
X-Info: Received by SMTP-gateway
On 11/2/19 4:18 PM, n1uro@n1uro.#cct.ct.usa.noam wrote:
> So if I may paraphrase here since we both run more than 2 BBS,
> we're not the norm here :) Most people run only 1 BBS thus their requirements
> for what they do aren't as complex as they would be for you or I. Even I had
> to code in a patch so that JNOS would accept locally written B and P mail from
> my LinFBB. The No BID patch that I supplied Maiko works for the average sysop.
At moment I run only the JNOS2 for ALL its particular features:
tcp/ip, wl2k, netrom, convers, netnews, etc. and naturally as
backup PBBS; then the obcm is almost used for AX.25 activities.
The obcm, fbb, and others full satisfy my requirement(s), so,
since the jnos2 will lack of this feature I should use them :)
>> The use of 8192 (alone) with an associated password have on
>> JNOS2 the benefit to allow to obcm, linfbb, dptnt etc to
>> have a perhaps more safe login and forwarding.
>
> I'm confused. Please explain the nature of this statement? There's only 2 things
> currently that this does in xNOS that I'm aware of:
> - Forces just a SID and ">" prompt
> - now forces a BID when sending mail (which makes for safer forwarding).
> What other "safer" logins and forwarding do you get from this?
There is a simple explanation, not specified before: the 'univperm',
and the 'anonymous' accesses are rejected since flagged to '128' ...
hope the jnos2 continue to function with them.
Being this situation you may access and forwarding only by using
netrom, inp3, flexnet ... then all for normal packet activities.
>> Note that my site is continually targeted by big government
>> and research/industrial hackers, so I can't release my hands
>> with a User setup.
>
> So you're using straight telnet - a plain text protocol to forward with in
> which any government, research/industrial cracker (a hacker is someone who
> improves up on a program for the better of it. A cracker is someone who
> breaks into things like a safe cracker (-: ) can sniff out your information.
> We have a saying here: Locks are only meant to keep honest people honest.
> Rather than using telnet forwarding, why not use netrom or
> ax.25 level forwarding? Then you don't expose a password in plain text.
> Security by obscurity is better than no security whatsoever. You can then
> even give yourself perm level of 63 and a BID won't be required until a SID
> is sent... to which if it's your LinFBB or OpenBCM it should send a SID upon
> connect. :)
Hope to reply to all at my best: all forwarding are setup, on
my side, by using the B1F (and B2F), but not all partners are
using them...:(
Not all have the capability to access the net/rom or any ax.25
so the only and easy method is the use the telnet forwarding.
It's clear that any transmissions: packet-radio, tcp/ip, voice
(roip, voip, etc) may be spied, copied, and so on.
Then, password security and other tools are those implemented
on our programs, any of them has its challenging procedure...
if passwords are exposed in clear... patience.
For everyone who want to forward, have an axip/axudp link,
xnet link, and any other toys, IS VERY WELCOME HERE :)
At last, why don't use here the perm flag 63?
I used it since I noted that CIA, FBI, Russian, Chinees,
and others can access and do everything you can imagine
and don't imagine... very worst things.
> 73 de N1URO
> ---
> SendBBS v1.1 by N1URO for LinFBB
--
73 and ciao, gustavo i0ojj/ir0aab/ir0eq
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
