• Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 1690
  • Last Modified:

SSH replace rlogin, rsh & rcp

Hi All,

I am using the utilities rlogin, rsh & rcp now.
As Network Address Translation technique will be applied to my system, I know NAT cannot support the above utilities but SSH can b used.

Can SSH perform all the functions supported by rlogin, rsh & rcp?

If yes, I would like to use SSH instead. But I haven't used SSH before.  

Please advise what must be concerned before making a decision to
use SSH to replace rlogin, rsh & rcp?

The OS version I am using is Digital Unix V4.0F.

Thanks!


0
iecu
Asked:
iecu
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2
  • +3
3 Solutions
 
yuzhCommented:
Secure shell ssh is a replacement of rlogin, rsh, secure ftp (sftp come with the secure
shell pachage) can replace rcp.

Information about how to use ssh can be found:
http://www.openssh.org/faq.html
http://www.employees.org/~satch/ssh/faq/ssh-faq-4.html

You can download openssh from:
http://www.openssh.org

0
 
TintinCommented:
What makes you think rlogin, rsh and rcp won't work with NATing?  

0
 
gheistCommented:
r* services authenticated based on source ip and user presented user tag.
4.0 was not very rich with ssh, but you can try to compile OpenSSH http://www.openssh.com/portable.html
5.1 has ssh server already in base set (not openSSH, but SSH.com)
0
Concerto's Cloud Advisory Services

Want to avoid the missteps to gaining all the benefits of the cloud? Learn more about the different assessment options from our Cloud Advisory team.

 
iecuAuthor Commented:
Dear Tintin,

In this document http://rfc.net/rfc3027.html,
it points out NAT cannot support rlogin & rsh.

Is this truth?



0
 
ahoffmannCommented:
> it points out NAT cannot support rlogin & rsh.
> Is this truth?

yes. Go with ssh, no problem there.
0
 
TintinCommented:
There you go.  Learn something new everyday.  Didn't realise rsh is effected by NAT.  Says rlogin is OK though (without Kerberos)
0
 
iecuAuthor Commented:
Hi Tintin,

I dont' have experience working with NAT before.

Do you have any experience with NAT?

Are you confident that NAT can work properly with rsh?

Thanks for your advice!
0
 
gheistCommented:
r* without kerberos (and kerberos does not work via NAT) simply authenticates by username client presents and source host, no password whatsoever.
if your Tru64 is inside private subnet behind the NAT box, then there is no problem with NAT as such.
0
 
yuzhCommented:
These r* are not secure, why not just use ssh?
0
 
iecuAuthor Commented:
Dear gheist,

Currently, I am using rsh at a workstation outside my prviate network.

If NAT is applied between the public network (the workstation currently locate) and private network, rsh "cannot" work under this environment. Am I correct?

The only way I can solve my problem is using SSH. Right?

Thanks for your advice!
0
 
GnsCommented:
> Currently, I am using rsh at a workstation outside my prviate network.
Shudder!
If that "outside" is the same as "rather publicly accessible", you should switch to using ssh as soon as humanely possible.
If it is "our only midway secure LAN connected to our secured LAN" you should still switch to ssh rather sooner than later;). The r* commands made sense in the -80:s, not today.

BTW, the straight ssh replacement command for rcp is (of course) scp ... not sftp (which is more like a wrapper providing ftp-like interface to scp;).
If you setup ssh for public key authentication you can have virtually the ease of the r* commands but with very much higher degree of security.

-- Glenn
0

Featured Post

Get your problem seen by more experts

Be seen. Boost your question’s priority for more expert views and faster solutions

  • 3
  • 2
  • 2
  • +3
Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now