Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!ames!decwrl!sun!quintus!ok From: ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: Improving password security Keywords: password, security, crypt server via RPC Message-ID: <769@quintus.UUCP> Date: 29 Nov 88 13:32:01 GMT References: <21670@pbhya.PacBell.COM> <27987@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <716@quintus.UUCP> <2220@cuuxb.ATT.COM> <741@quintus.UUCP> <522@necisa.necisa.oz> Sender: news@quintus.UUCP Reply-To: ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Inc. Lines: 17 In article <522@necisa.necisa.oz> boyd@necisa.necisa.oz (Boyd Roberts) writes: >In article <741@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >>[In reply to a claim that a password server would be vulernable to >> having *one* machine go down.] >>There is no reason why a password server could not be replicated. > >So, we'll just re-invent YP, again!?! No point doing something badly, when >you can get some other mindless jerk to do it _really_ badly. As near as I can figure out, Boyd Roberts appears to be claiming that every new replicated server is "some mindless jerk ... re-invent[ing] YP, again ... _really_ badly". Strange. I thought replicated servers (e.g. name-servers, time-servers) were around before YP was even dreamed of. There was a lot of stuff from Xerox on "registries". Calling a (distributed implementation of) a function remotely isn't *quite* the same as using YP, but let it pass.