The only reason I can think of is using ssh is for large databases import, other then that im blank.

Any one know any others reasons why user needs ssh access?

(thinking of not to provide ssh access and ways of over comming requirements for ssh)

There are a few things like wget that are nice, but it's really not necessary if the host isn't an absentee.

I may be misunderstanding many of the posts on these forums but to clear it up once and for all for me...

Do you guys see SSH as offering a different type of access than Telnet offers? Would not all of you agree that the only difference between SSH and Telnet is the extra security provided to the end user and that it currently provides no more or less security to the server to offer Telnet but not SSH?

Telnet and SSH provide the end user with the same amount of access and functionality. The difference is whether or not the end user's data is being transferred to the server encrypted e.g. more securely.

The above question is a bit off topic I know.. sorry about that. It's just that I see a lot of what appears to be separation between Telnet Access and SSH Access and I am confused as to why? What is SSH needed for that cant be done via cpanel and ftp? If everything one needs to do via Telnet can be done via the cpanel, and if the end user's browser can view cpanel just fine, and that end user has no use for Telnet or want for the command line, and every function in cpanel is provided via an SSL web site, and you provide Secure FTP access, then I guess nothing.

If on the other hand, the end user does require Telnet, for script troubleshooting and the general ease/joy of being able to work at the commend line, and they prefer (as I would!) their data to be transferred securely, then they certainly should require SSH access. Additionally, SFTP access should be provided as well.

Remember, a number of crackers are sysAdmins at ISPs. They gain many of their cracked accounts via sniffing the router, switch, or lines within the ISP itself for passwords. Passwords are highly abundant with protocols such as Telnet, FTP, POP, and IMAP. Many clients feel safer using SSH and Secure FTP knowing the connection from their computer to their host is encrypted preventing man-in-the-middle sniffing or hijacking.

I personally would not go with a host these days that did not offer me both SFTP and SSH access and I know we would loose many clients if we failed to offer them secure access to their server.

Originally posted by Deb
Do you guys see SSH as offering a different type of access than Telnet offers?the point is, if a host doesn't offer ssh, it usually doesn't offer telnet either.

SSH is wonderful. With it you can do things quicker, check things on your server, check up on your host to see if they are telling you the truth about hardware and software, etc. I could not live without it, myself. On top of that the tools that you can use with SSH are helpful too. There's curl, expect, wget, etc. It's also great for making an SSL certificate, and alot more.

Additionally, you can run awk, sed, csh or bash commands that are often much simpler than doing the same thing in a script.

I won't use a host that doesn't support it. I tend to do a lot of my coding and html maintenance with vi/vim on the server. It's great for running quick queries on your data in your MySQL database(s) or even database maintenance. I also check uptime and server load quite a bit. You can't forget about pine either.

Regards,
Charlie

Originally posted by Deb

Do you guys see SSH as offering a different type of access than Telnet offers? Would not all of you agree that the only difference between SSH and Telnet is the extra security provided to the end user and that it currently provides no more or less security to the server to offer Telnet but not SSH?



Of course SSH only offers security at the time of login to the end user. The encrypted login does provide more server security, because it prevents sniffers on the network from getting plain text passwords. This would prevent unauthorized access to accounts, therefore increasing overall server security. Sure, there's no substitute for a secure environment once a user is logged in, but why leave the door open for unauthorized access?

That being said, what's the point of having telnet at all if you're offering SSH? Quicker logins? I don't see any reason to have telnet enabled when you're offering SSH. The end result is the same. The only difference is the secure login.

Originally posted by lightnin
That being said, what's the point of having telnet at all if you're offering SSH? Quicker logins? I don't see any reason to have telnet enabled when you're offering SSH. The end result is the same. The only difference is the secure login. There are some laws, in some areas and under certain circumstances, that do not permit SSH clients to be operated. For this reason I feel it is best for us, as hosts that do permit SSH, to also permit Telnet logins. It's a matter of catering to all clients rather than just those with the "legal rights" that match in this area. Allowing each client to choose to use whichever they prefer while offering them the ability to use what we would see as the best option. Client flexibility is always nice wherever you can provide it and there are some who do find a standard Telnet login to be easier to work with when writing scripts than an SSH login.

I believe Communitech attempted to remove Telnet access and only permit SSH access at one time and if memory serves me correctly they took quite a beating for that change and ended up reverting the decision.

I'm shocked, Deb! As much as you seem concerned about security that you allow telnet. SSH (secure telnet) is fine; but regular telnet. Yikes!

Yikes...I have 500 posts!


Anyways, SSH is nice for people that know Linux..but useless for others.

Originally posted by chrisb
I'm shocked, Deb! As much as you seem concerned about security that you allow telnet. SSH (secure telnet) is fine; but regular telnet. Yikes! Chris, we allow cgi scripts too :o

Good one, Deb. :)

:stickout