Re: Binkd and TLS
  By: Michiel van der Vlist to Richard Menedetter on Tue Dec 17 2019 04:10 pm

 > The Synchronet fans do not seem to like starttls, they want a diffrent port.

The people-in-the-know don't like starttls:
https://serverfault.com/questions/523804/is-starttls-less-safe-than-tls-ssl

 > So we alreay have two competing standards...

Are you refering to Binkd's CRYPT option as one of those standards? Not to pick
a nit, but it's not actually a standard. It's not even a proposed standard:
http://ftsc.org/docs/fsp-1024.000

I could also argue that BinkP over TLS (binkps) is an implicitly defined
standard since the TCP application protocol (binkp) is already a defined
standard:
http://ftsc.org/docs/fts-1026.001

If you take an existing clear-text TCP application protocol (e.g. telnet) and
simply define a new TCP port to be used for the implicit TLS transport of a
secure implementation of that same protocol (e.g. telnets) - you don't actually
need a new protocol definition (e.g. RFC) for the secure protocol to be a
"standard". The same is true of binkps.

                                            digital man

Synchronet "Real Fact" #77:
Rob Swindell still has dozens of BBS-related magazines in his possession.
Norco, CA WX: 61.5øF, 16.0% humidity, 6 mph WNW wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
--- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux