setting up a server with no screen or keyboard: use X or just ssh? - Setup

This is a discussion on setting up a server with no screen or keyboard: use X or just ssh? - Setup ; Folks after a long absence from IT I'm starting to set up a server here at home for operations as a database and www server. I'm intending to connect it to the LAN but not allow it outside to play. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: setting up a server with no screen or keyboard: use X or just ssh?

  1. setting up a server with no screen or keyboard: use X or just ssh?

    Folks

    after a long absence from IT I'm starting to set up a server here at home for
    operations as a database and www server. I'm intending to connect it to the
    LAN but not allow it outside to play.

    I was thinking of setting it up to run with no screen / keyboard to save space
    in the apartment (and keep it out of the way).

    Can anyone advise me if its better to try and get X going on the 'client'
    computers and connect to the server via X or just use SSH?

    thanks

    See Ya
    (when bandwidth gets better ;-)

    Chris Eastwood
    Photographer, Programmer Motorcyclist and dingbat
    blog: http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/

    please remove undies for reply

  2. Re: setting up a server with no screen or keyboard: use X or justssh?

    On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:33:15 +0000, obakesan wrote:

    > after a long absence from IT I'm starting to set up a server here at
    > home for operations as a database and www server. I'm intending to
    > connect it to the LAN but not allow it outside to play.
    >
    > I was thinking of setting it up to run with no screen / keyboard to save
    > space in the apartment (and keep it out of the way).
    >
    > Can anyone advise me if its better to try and get X going on the
    > 'client' computers and connect to the server via X or just use SSH?


    SSH is all you really need to administer the server, but using X-based
    tools is easier--point-n-click.

    Stef

  3. Re: setting up a server with no screen or keyboard: use X or justssh?

    On Jul 3, 8:33 am, pellicleund...@hotmail.com (obakesan) wrote:
    > Folks
    >
    > after a long absence from IT I'm starting to set up a server here at home for
    > operations as a database and www server. I'm intending to connect it to the
    > LAN but not allow it outside to play.
    >
    > I was thinking of setting it up to run with no screen / keyboard to save space
    > in the apartment (and keep it out of the way).
    >
    > Can anyone advise me if its better to try and get X going on the 'client'
    > computers and connect to the server via X or just use SSH?
    >
    > thanks
    >
    > See Ya
    > (when bandwidth gets better ;-)
    >
    > Chris Eastwood
    > Photographer, Programmer Motorcyclist and dingbat
    > blog:http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/
    >
    > please remove undies for reply


    I would use vncserver and connect to it using vnc client tunneled over
    ssh. That would be the best if you still need gui utilities.

    Later, I would also agree that ssh only thing you really need.

    on the server do something like

    vncserver -geometry 800x600 -depth 16

    and then connect using vncviewer on the system 127.0.0.1:5901 or what
    ever port it is listening on.

    happy hunting.



  4. Re: setting up a server with no screen or keyboard: use X or just ssh?

    obakesan wrote:
    > I was thinking of setting it up to run with no screen / keyboard to save space
    > in the apartment (and keep it out of the way).
    >
    > Can anyone advise me if its better to try and get X going on the 'client'
    > computers and connect to the server via X or just use SSH?


    I run a similar setup here. My servers have no screen and keyboard, and
    I access them via telnet from client machines.

    I have no X components on the server.

    My servers provide web services, wiki documentation, usenet news feed,
    internet relay chat, sql database services, and all sorts of stuff, all
    without X, so SSH would work just fine for you.

    Regards,

    Mark.

    --
    Mark Hobley,
    393 Quinton Road West,
    Quinton, BIRMINGHAM.
    B32 1QE.

  5. Re: setting up a server with no screen or keyboard: use X or justssh?

    obakesan wrote:
    > Folks
    >
    > after a long absence from IT I'm starting to set up a server here at home for
    > operations as a database and www server. I'm intending to connect it to the
    > LAN but not allow it outside to play.
    >
    > I was thinking of setting it up to run with no screen / keyboard to save space
    > in the apartment (and keep it out of the way).
    >
    > Can anyone advise me if its better to try and get X going on the 'client'
    > computers and connect to the server via X or just use SSH?
    >

    If inside a firewall, plain old Telnet is good.

    I use telnet for extreme hacking, webmin for basic admin tasks and samba
    to edit web pages - the web server is a samba mount point

    MRTG is a usefull addition to monitor networks stats, and other things
    too if you want.

    Debeian etch platform.
    > thanks
    >
    > See Ya
    > (when bandwidth gets better ;-)
    >
    > Chris Eastwood
    > Photographer, Programmer Motorcyclist and dingbat
    > blog: http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/
    >
    > please remove undies for reply


  6. Re: setting up a server with no screen or keyboard: use X or just ssh?

    On Thu, 03 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.setup, in article
    , obakesan wrote:

    >after a long absence from IT I'm starting to set up a server here at
    >home for operations as a database and www server. I'm intending to
    >connect it to the LAN but not allow it outside to play.


    OK - LAN verses Internet is a function of the firewall on your router
    or masquerading box (don't forward packets to the ports on the server
    where your database or web server live), and MAY also be influenced
    by the configuration of the server on your unnamed Linux distribution.

    >I was thinking of setting it up to run with no screen / keyboard to
    >save space in the apartment (and keep it out of the way).


    That's fine.

    >Can anyone advise me if its better to try and get X going on the
    >'client' computers and connect to the server via X or just use SSH?


    -rw-rw-r-- 1 gferg ldp 287028 Mar 31 2003 Remote-Serial-Console-HOWTO
    -rw-rw-r-- 1 gferg ldp 38522 Dec 7 2001 Remote-X-Apps

    Rather old documents, but still valid. Do you _need_ X on the server?
    Does administration of the hardware, database, or web pages _require_
    a GUI interface/tool, or is this just a convenience that you believe
    will allow you to do everything needed without knowing the commands?

    The headless systems in my home are all _primarily_ administered and
    used "over the net" from other systems on the LAN. They ALSO have a
    serial cable to an 'A/B/C/D' switch and that connects to one of the
    workstations, so that I can get into the systems in the event of a
    network problem. None of my servers even have X installed as I'm
    comfortable enough at the command line. (Three of the four are old
    systems that otherwise lack the horsepower to run X, but can serve
    files as fast as the LAN bandwidth allows.)

    Old guy

  7. Re: setting up a server with no screen or keyboard: use X or just ssh?

    >If inside a firewall, plain old Telnet is good.

    Why encourage bad habbits? ssh works fine.

    --
    These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.


  8. Re: setting up a server with no screen or keyboard: use X or justssh?

    Hal Murray wrote:
    >> If inside a firewall, plain old Telnet is good.

    >
    > Why encourage bad habbits? ssh works fine.
    >

    So does Telnet.

    Even over a wide are link. The ONLY issue is that telnet sends passwords
    in plain text. Who really is listening outside of your LAN?
    or inside it..

  9. Re: setting up a server with no screen or keyboard: use X or just ssh?

    Hal Murray wrote:
    > Why encourage bad habbits? ssh works fine.


    SSH encrypts the network traffic. You might not want encrypted traffic
    on an internal LAN. This may make network packet monitoring difficult
    with conventional tools, and produces a decryption overhead on the
    client machines (unless the network cards provide hardware level cryptography).

    Mark.

    --
    Mark Hobley,
    393 Quinton Road West,
    Quinton, BIRMINGHAM.
    B32 1QE.

  10. Re: setting up a server with no screen or keyboard: use X or justssh?

    Mark Hobley wrote:
    > Hal Murray wrote:
    >> Why encourage bad habbits? ssh works fine.

    >
    > SSH encrypts the network traffic. You might not want encrypted traffic
    > on an internal LAN. This may make network packet monitoring difficult
    > with conventional tools, and produces a decryption overhead on the
    > client machines (unless the network cards provide hardware level cryptography).
    >
    > Mark.
    >

    ssh is a campus tool, when there are loads of nerdy geeks on a repeated
    (not switched) network who fire up packet sniffers to see if they can
    hack the servers..

    It is protection against a problem that has almost ceased to exist.

    I use telnet right across the Internet. The chances that someone could
    both sniff the password and spoof my calling IP address and be bothered
    to actually DO it are negligible.

  11. Re: setting up a server with no screen or keyboard: use X or justssh?

    The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    > Mark Hobley wrote:
    >> Hal Murray wrote:
    >>> Why encourage bad habbits? ssh works fine.

    >>
    >> SSH encrypts the network traffic. You might not want encrypted traffic
    >> on an internal LAN. This may make network packet monitoring difficult
    >> with conventional tools, and produces a decryption overhead on the
    >> client machines (unless the network cards provide hardware level
    >> cryptography).
    >>
    >> Mark.
    >>

    > ssh is a campus tool, when there are loads of nerdy geeks on a repeated
    > (not switched) network who fire up packet sniffers to see if they can
    > hack the servers..
    >
    > It is protection against a problem that has almost ceased to exist.
    >
    > I use telnet right across the Internet. The chances that someone could
    > both sniff the password and spoof my calling IP address and be bothered
    > to actually DO it are negligible.


    From harsh, harsh experience, this is dead wrong.

  12. Re: setting up a server with no screen or keyboard: use X or justssh?

    Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    >> Mark Hobley wrote:
    >>> Hal Murray wrote:
    >>>> Why encourage bad habbits? ssh works fine.
    >>>
    >>> SSH encrypts the network traffic. You might not want encrypted
    >>> traffic on an internal LAN. This may make network packet monitoring
    >>> difficult with conventional tools, and produces a decryption overhead
    >>> on the client machines (unless the network cards provide hardware
    >>> level cryptography).
    >>>
    >>> Mark.
    >>>

    >> ssh is a campus tool, when there are loads of nerdy geeks on a
    >> repeated (not switched) network who fire up packet sniffers to see if
    >> they can hack the servers..
    >>
    >> It is protection against a problem that has almost ceased to exist.
    >>
    >> I use telnet right across the Internet. The chances that someone could
    >> both sniff the password and spoof my calling IP address and be
    >> bothered to actually DO it are negligible.

    >
    > From harsh, harsh experience, this is dead wrong.

    Works OK here.

    I have of course got single address holes through the firewalls.

    Someone would have to access an ISP central router to spoof my address.

    Since I use the connection very rarely, the chance of an existing
    connection being hijacked is very low.



  13. Re: setting up a server with no screen or keyboard: use X or justssh?

    The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    > Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    >>> Mark Hobley wrote:
    >>>> Hal Murray wrote:
    >>>>> Why encourage bad habbits? ssh works fine.
    >>>>
    >>>> SSH encrypts the network traffic. You might not want encrypted
    >>>> traffic on an internal LAN. This may make network packet monitoring
    >>>> difficult with conventional tools, and produces a decryption
    >>>> overhead on the client machines (unless the network cards provide
    >>>> hardware level cryptography).
    >>>>
    >>>> Mark.
    >>>>
    >>> ssh is a campus tool, when there are loads of nerdy geeks on a
    >>> repeated (not switched) network who fire up packet sniffers to see if
    >>> they can hack the servers..
    >>>
    >>> It is protection against a problem that has almost ceased to exist.
    >>>
    >>> I use telnet right across the Internet. The chances that someone
    >>> could both sniff the password and spoof my calling IP address and be
    >>> bothered to actually DO it are negligible.

    >>
    >> From harsh, harsh experience, this is dead wrong.

    > Works OK here.
    >
    > I have of course got single address holes through the firewalls.
    >
    > Someone would have to access an ISP central router to spoof my address.
    >
    > Since I use the connection very rarely, the chance of an existing
    > connection being hijacked is very low.


    Until, of course, you come to someone's attention who doesn't like you, or a
    script kiddie who monitors your connection and picks up the packets saying
    'password' as you connect to anything else on the remote end.

    Monitoring at ISP routers is a matter of course for semi-pro or professional
    crackers. Script kiddies hacking routers is a real problem. The infrequency of
    your connections will help, but it's like leaving your laptop on the bus. You
    might get it back, you might not. Why take the risk?

  14. Re: setting up a server with no screen or keyboard: use X or justssh?

    Hi

    In article <486EA50C.7050600@gmail.com>, Nico Kadel-Garcia
    wrote:

    >
    >There are tools that work very poorly in text-only mode. VMware is one of
    >them: RedHat's 'system-config-authentication', compared to 'authconfig-tui'
    >for non-X use, is another. Others, like virt-manager and OpenOffice, do not
    >operate in text mode at all.


    right up until I read this post I was thinking "yep, all sounds
    reasonable ... I'll go with SSH"

    but ... I'm intending to put VMware on the box to allow me to have;
    -a couple of totally separate database instances going to test ASM concepts
    - a win2000 'box' to play with remote desktop and perhaps other things

    so it might be just as well to leave X running (as I've seemingly got it going
    now). Box is:
    AMD ATHLON 64 X2 4600+
    MSI K9NGM4-F V2 (btw ... don't use this MB this if you're going to use
    redhat!)
    4Gig memory
    some SATA drives

    so probably X shouldn't bog it down much ...

    thanks to everyone for the valuable information :-)





    See Ya
    (when bandwidth gets better ;-)

    Chris Eastwood
    Photographer, Programmer Motorcyclist and dingbat
    blog: http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/

    please remove undies for reply

  15. Re: setting up a server with no screen or keyboard: use X or justssh?

    obakesan wrote:
    > Hi
    >
    > In article <486EA50C.7050600@gmail.com>, Nico Kadel-Garcia
    > wrote:
    >
    >> There are tools that work very poorly in text-only mode. VMware is one of
    >> them: RedHat's 'system-config-authentication', compared to 'authconfig-tui'
    >> for non-X use, is another. Others, like virt-manager and OpenOffice, do not
    >> operate in text mode at all.

    >
    > right up until I read this post I was thinking "yep, all sounds
    > reasonable ... I'll go with SSH"
    >
    > but ... I'm intending to put VMware on the box to allow me to have;
    > -a couple of totally separate database instances going to test ASM concepts
    > - a win2000 'box' to play with remote desktop and perhaps other things
    >
    > so it might be just as well to leave X running (as I've seemingly got it going
    > now). Box is:
    > AMD ATHLON 64 X2 4600+
    > MSI K9NGM4-F V2 (btw ... don't use this MB this if you're going to use
    > redhat!)
    > 4Gig memory
    > some SATA drives


    Leaving X running is not the same as installing X enough to support VMware,
    especially for remote access. And for the higher grades of VMware, they really
    expect you to administer it from that ghods-awful Windows client.

    > so probably X shouldn't bog it down much ...
    >
    > thanks to everyone for the valuable information :-)


    Why do you want VMware? If you're not running something oddball, like SCO
    OpenServer which I'm doing right now, Xen works quite well and is built into
    RHEL and Fedora and plenty of other distributions in para-virtualized and thus
    more efficient virtualization. And Xen knows how to be run, correctly, from
    the command line.

  16. Re: setting up a server with no screen or keyboard: use X or justssh?

    Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    >> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    >>>> Mark Hobley wrote:
    >>>>> Hal Murray wrote:
    >>>>>> Why encourage bad habbits? ssh works fine.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> SSH encrypts the network traffic. You might not want encrypted
    >>>>> traffic on an internal LAN. This may make network packet monitoring
    >>>>> difficult with conventional tools, and produces a decryption
    >>>>> overhead on the client machines (unless the network cards provide
    >>>>> hardware level cryptography).
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Mark.
    >>>>>
    >>>> ssh is a campus tool, when there are loads of nerdy geeks on a
    >>>> repeated (not switched) network who fire up packet sniffers to see
    >>>> if they can hack the servers..
    >>>>
    >>>> It is protection against a problem that has almost ceased to exist.
    >>>>
    >>>> I use telnet right across the Internet. The chances that someone
    >>>> could both sniff the password and spoof my calling IP address and be
    >>>> bothered to actually DO it are negligible.
    >>>
    >>> From harsh, harsh experience, this is dead wrong.

    >> Works OK here.
    >>
    >> I have of course got single address holes through the firewalls.
    >>
    >> Someone would have to access an ISP central router to spoof my address.
    >>
    >> Since I use the connection very rarely, the chance of an existing
    >> connection being hijacked is very low.

    >
    > Until, of course, you come to someone's attention who doesn't like you,
    > or a script kiddie who monitors your connection


    How can he do that?

    Not at my site,. as the cable to the hub would be obvious.

    Not at the remote site,either, as that is manned 24x7.

    you men he's hacked into some core iSP'd router?

    Ho hum.

    > and picks up the packets
    > saying 'password' as you connect to anything else on the remote end.


    How does he get to monitir any packets at all passing between me and teh
    remote site?


    >
    > Monitoring at ISP routers is a matter of course for semi-pro or
    > professional crackers.


    I can assure you its not.


    > Script kiddies hacking routers is a real problem.


    I can assure you its not.

    > The infrequency of your connections will help, but it's like leaving
    > your laptop on the bus. You might get it back, you might not. Why take
    > the risk?


    Because of all te risks, it is the most unlikely: your thesis is founded
    on illogical assumptions.

  17. Re: setting up a server with no screen or keyboard: use X or justssh?

    The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    > Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    >>> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    >>>>> Mark Hobley wrote:
    >>>>>> Hal Murray wrote:
    >>>>>>> Why encourage bad habbits? ssh works fine.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> SSH encrypts the network traffic. You might not want encrypted
    >>>>>> traffic on an internal LAN. This may make network packet
    >>>>>> monitoring difficult with conventional tools, and produces a
    >>>>>> decryption overhead on the client machines (unless the network
    >>>>>> cards provide hardware level cryptography).
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Mark.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> ssh is a campus tool, when there are loads of nerdy geeks on a
    >>>>> repeated (not switched) network who fire up packet sniffers to see
    >>>>> if they can hack the servers..
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It is protection against a problem that has almost ceased to exist.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I use telnet right across the Internet. The chances that someone
    >>>>> could both sniff the password and spoof my calling IP address and
    >>>>> be bothered to actually DO it are negligible.
    >>>>
    >>>> From harsh, harsh experience, this is dead wrong.
    >>> Works OK here.
    >>>
    >>> I have of course got single address holes through the firewalls.
    >>>
    >>> Someone would have to access an ISP central router to spoof my address.
    >>>
    >>> Since I use the connection very rarely, the chance of an existing
    >>> connection being hijacked is very low.

    >>
    >> Until, of course, you come to someone's attention who doesn't like
    >> you, or a script kiddie who monitors your connection

    >
    > How can he do that?
    >
    > Not at my site,. as the cable to the hub would be obvious.
    >
    > Not at the remote site,either, as that is manned 24x7.
    >
    > you men he's hacked into some core iSP'd router?
    >
    > Ho hum.


    This is done as a matter of course. Or didn't you read the articles about
    AT&T's cooperation with NSA monitoring?


    >> and picks up the packets saying 'password' as you connect to anything
    >> else on the remote end.

    >
    > How does he get to monitir any packets at all passing between me and teh
    > remote site?


    See above?

    >
    >>
    >> Monitoring at ISP routers is a matter of course for semi-pro or
    >> professional crackers.

    >
    > I can assure you its not.
    >
    >
    >> Script kiddies hacking routers is a real problem.

    >
    > I can assure you its not.
    >
    >> The infrequency of your connections will help, but it's like leaving
    >> your laptop on the bus. You might get it back, you might not. Why take
    >> the risk?

    >
    > Because of all te risks, it is the most unlikely: your thesis is founded
    > on illogical assumptions.


  18. Re: setting up a server with no screen or keyboard: use X or justssh?

    Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    >> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    >>>> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    >>>>>> Mark Hobley wrote:
    >>>>>>> Hal Murray wrote:
    >>>>>>>> Why encourage bad habbits? ssh works fine.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> SSH encrypts the network traffic. You might not want encrypted
    >>>>>>> traffic on an internal LAN. This may make network packet
    >>>>>>> monitoring difficult with conventional tools, and produces a
    >>>>>>> decryption overhead on the client machines (unless the network
    >>>>>>> cards provide hardware level cryptography).
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Mark.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> ssh is a campus tool, when there are loads of nerdy geeks on a
    >>>>>> repeated (not switched) network who fire up packet sniffers to see
    >>>>>> if they can hack the servers..
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> It is protection against a problem that has almost ceased to exist.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I use telnet right across the Internet. The chances that someone
    >>>>>> could both sniff the password and spoof my calling IP address and
    >>>>>> be bothered to actually DO it are negligible.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> From harsh, harsh experience, this is dead wrong.
    >>>> Works OK here.
    >>>>
    >>>> I have of course got single address holes through the firewalls.
    >>>>
    >>>> Someone would have to access an ISP central router to spoof my address.
    >>>>
    >>>> Since I use the connection very rarely, the chance of an existing
    >>>> connection being hijacked is very low.
    >>>
    >>> Until, of course, you come to someone's attention who doesn't like
    >>> you, or a script kiddie who monitors your connection

    >>
    >> How can he do that?
    >>
    >> Not at my site,. as the cable to the hub would be obvious.
    >>
    >> Not at the remote site,either, as that is manned 24x7.
    >>
    >> you men he's hacked into some core iSP'd router?
    >>
    >> Ho hum.

    >
    > This is done as a matter of course. Or didn't you read the articles
    > about AT&T's cooperation with NSA monitoring?
    >


    Well I aint in the USA for one thing, and secondly, weird and naff
    though they are, the NSA is not a 'script kiddie'


    >
    >>> and picks up the packets saying 'password' as you connect to anything
    >>> else on the remote end.

    >>
    >> How does he get to monitir any packets at all passing between me and
    >> teh remote site?

    >
    > See above?
    >


    So are you saying that te NSA is staffed by script kiddies who routinely
    hack into peoplel servers just for the fun of it?

    Over here, that would be a very criminal matter indeed. Still I guess in
    the Land of the Free, only the govt is right? Fred to randomly and
    casually screw your data over juts because they can.

    And do pu REALLY think the NSA cant crack an ssh connection if they wan to?

    Really..

  19. Re: setting up a server with no screen or keyboard: use X or justssh?

    The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    > Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    >>> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:



    >>> you men he's hacked into some core iSP'd router?
    >>>
    >>> Ho hum.

    >>
    >> This is done as a matter of course. Or didn't you read the articles
    >> about AT&T's cooperation with NSA monitoring?
    >>

    >
    > Well I aint in the USA for one thing, and secondly, weird and naff
    > though they are, the NSA is not a 'script kiddie'


    The AT&T/NSA hackery is publicly verified. And that's an instance where it was
    revealed. That's right on a major internet fiber trunk, and it went on for
    years as a matter of ISP policy. Now, given the vagaries of the US Patriot Act
    and of other nation's security policies, to believe that the traffic is secure
    at the ISP is ill-founded. And that was insider monitoring at the ISP.

    The script kiddies are a distinct problem, I'll admit. Given the numerous
    published vulnerabilities of even good routers, and given the internal
    cracking and social engineering that can happen to both small and large ISP's,
    there's just no reason to think any local or remote ISP's routers are safe. None.

    >>>> and picks up the packets saying 'password' as you connect to
    >>>> anything else on the remote end.
    >>>
    >>> How does he get to monitir any packets at all passing between me and
    >>> teh remote site?

    >>
    >> See above?
    >>

    >
    > So are you saying that te NSA is staffed by script kiddies who routinely
    > hack into peoplel servers just for the fun of it?


    The NSA does it as a matter of course. It's their job.

    > Over here, that would be a very criminal matter indeed. Still I guess in
    > the Land of the Free, only the govt is right? Fred to randomly and
    > casually screw your data over juts because they can.


    It's a criminal matter in the USA, too.

    > And do pu REALLY think the NSA cant crack an ssh connection if they wan to?
    >
    > Really..


    An encrypted session is a whole different ball of wax. The level of effort
    required is much higher, and you can't just slap one of the Sandstorm
    Netintercept boxes into the backbone and reassemble the traffic at whim the
    way you can with with HTTP and Telnet and RSH. (THey're fascinating devices,
    at http://www.sandstorm.net/: I've known the company head for years.)

  20. Re: setting up a server with no screen or keyboard: use X or justssh?

    Hi

    In article <486FA9E2.3020700@gmail.com>, Nico Kadel-Garcia
    wrote:
    >
    >Why do you want VMware? If you're not running something oddball, like SCO
    >OpenServer which I'm doing right now, Xen works quite well and is built into


    ok ... well thank you for mentioning that. I'd not heard of that before.

    Just reading the sites http://www.xen.org and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xen
    now :-)

    See Ya
    (when bandwidth gets better ;-)

    Chris Eastwood
    Photographer, Programmer Motorcyclist and dingbat
    blog: http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/

    please remove undies for reply

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast