SSH Key generation question
in [General Linux]
|
From: J G Miller on 20 Jun 2010 14:29 On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:17:54 -0500, John Hasler wrote: > To most people a client is someone a lawyer represents and a server is > the person who brings food to the table at a restaurant. Excellent point! ;)
From: Todd on 20 Jun 2010 15:07 On 06/20/2010 08:29 AM, despen(a)verizon.net wrote: > Totally wrong. > > The program supplying the SERVICE is the SERVER. > > The program consuming the service is the client. > > Very simple: > > SERVER -> SERVICE > > crunching numbers has nothing to do with the relationship. I would have to point out that the workstation is the one who initiate the network packet as state=new, not the number cruncher. And, if some other number cruncher goes astray, the workstation will not display the number cruncher's output. This because the stray number cruncher has not "established" a network connection for stray cruncher. My point is that the computer that sends out the state=new packet is not the computer providing the service. Both computers are listening. The workstation will *only* display output from the a particular cruncher that it directly solicited. I have had users look at time with glossed over eyes, up is down and down is up and the sun rises in the west, when I call XMing an "X server". When I told them that the X11 folks reverse the terminology, hen all was right with the world. And, I also must point out, that I do understand why the X11 folks call it the way they do. They are entitled to call it whatever they want, as I am entitled to *disagree* -T p.s. maybe I should tell the Samba folks that because the workstations are providing the service of listening to their output, that they should call their stuff a "client". Wounder how they will respond.
From: Todd on 20 Jun 2010 15:10 On 06/20/2010 05:54 AM, J G Miller wrote: > On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:16:48 -0700, Todd wrote: > >> But if that is the way the X11 folks want to phrase it, it is okay with >> me. Just as long as I know what they are up to so I can adjust for >> their quirks in speech. > > What an insulting remark to people who know, understand and use > the correct terminology. I am not sure how you took that as an insult. I do admire that you are able to track the X11 folks thinking on the matter and explain it to the rest of us. No insult was intended.
From: Todd on 20 Jun 2010 15:21 On 06/20/2010 06:00 AM, J G Miller wrote: > On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:31:36 -0700, Todd wrote: >> If I create his keys for him on my server > > You do NOT create the keys for him on your server. > > He creates his own keys on his own machine, and if it is > running Windoze, he uses puttygen which comes as part > of the PuTTY package. > > <http://www.chiark.greenend.org.UK/~sgtatham/putty/> > > The simple instructions for using Puttygen to create a pair > of keys, which even a Windoze user should be able to > follow, are at > > <http://the.earth.LI/~sgtatham/putty/0.60/htmldoc/Chapter8.html#pubkey-puttygen> Thank you for the links! I thought I had the choice. If he wanted to create his own keys, he just sends me his public key. And, he can send it to me in the clear as it is public. If, for some reason, he wanted me to do it for him, I just generate a pair of them on my server and sent him his private portion (out of band to provide security). Optionally, I could include his public key if he wanted to use it somewhere else. What am I missing? Many thanks, -T
From: Todd on 20 Jun 2010 15:30
On 06/20/2010 12:21 PM, Todd wrote: > On 06/20/2010 06:00 AM, J G Miller wrote: >> You do NOT create the keys for him on your server. > I thought I had the choice. Found the reference: On 06/18/2010 10:04 PM, Keith Keller wrote: > Yes. If you don't trust the remote user, you could generate the keys > and send him the private key So, do I have the choice? Many thanks, -T |