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.