Graphical terminal emulator for Windows->Linux access.

A few days ago UnixSpace.com announced about its new product: Windows
telnet client. Don't laugh! This is a serious. The thing is that it is a
graphical terminal but not X11:

"UnixSpace terminal - it's a realization of a telnet client for Windows.
It is capable of emulation Linux and FreeBSD console, VT220, ANSI, and
its own UnixSpace terminal. In the last instance the terminal has 256
colors, 4 font with 4 mode (bold | italic) , and is able to display
various graphical objects (lines, rectangles, curves, etc.) as well as
display gif and jpeg images. Besides terminal allows execution of Word,
Excel, HTML, and other types of documents located on the Unix server.
UnixSpace terminal has 4 virtual consoles, each with individual
configuration. In other words you could open 4 different telnet sessions
and be able to switch between them using Alt-F1/Alt-F4, or with the
mouse. It's practically a new type of a terminal device."

The second good news is: the evaluation version has not time limitation.
Download it and use for free.
The site is: http://www.unixspace.com/download

A.L.

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:08:35 GMT, san wrote:
> A few days ago UnixSpace.com announced about its new product: Windows
> telnet client. Don't laugh! This is a serious. The thing is that it is a
> graphical terminal but not X11:

I loaded cygwin on my windows box at work. Used fvwm window manager.
That allows you to use ssh for a gui connecion and you do not pass your login
and password as clear text across the network like telnet does.

For fun, I configured it to have 96 desktops.

Concerning security:
For improved security reasons instead of using SSH protocol the
UnixSpace terminal is able to use an encrypted protocol based on a
semi-random stream. But it is not so important at the moment,
the SSH protocol can be added late. The idea of this product is the
using the graphical objects in the CONSOLE application!


Bit Twister wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:08:35 GMT, san wrote:
>
>>A few days ago UnixSpace.com announced about its new product: Windows
>>telnet client. Don't laugh! This is a serious. The thing is that it is a
>>graphical terminal but not X11:
>
>
> I loaded cygwin on my windows box at work. Used fvwm window manager.
> That allows you to use ssh for a gui connecion and you do not pass your login
> and password as clear text across the network like telnet does.
>
> For fun, I configured it to have 96 desktops.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.networking.]

On 2004-01-07, san <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> A few days ago UnixSpace.com announced about its new product: Windows
> telnet client. Don't laugh! This is a serious.

....spam? And your product doesn't even do ssh?

- --keith

- --
kkeller-(E-Mail Removed)
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE//C40hVcNCxZ5ID8RAl6HAJ9HoWiAw4HjCTOOOzCAV/F3B6YeAgCeJdVq
d3sxEfNkFxjGxmdWR7z4Z4I=
=Cu8O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 2004-01-07, san <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>>A few days ago UnixSpace.com announced about its new product:
>>>Windows telnet client. Don't laugh! This is a serious. The
>>>thing is that it is a graphical terminal but not X11:
>>
>> I loaded cygwin on my windows box at work. Used fvwm window
>> manager. That allows you to use ssh for a gui connecion and
>> you do not pass your login and password as clear text across
>> the network like telnet does.

> For improved security reasons instead of using SSH protocol the
> UnixSpace terminal is able to use an encrypted protocol based on a
> semi-random stream.

Big alarm bells just went off there. You think you've invented
a better security scheme, eh? I doubt it. A _lot_ of people
over the years have claimed to have invented a new, better
security schemes.

Almost all of them have been full of holes.

> But it is not so important at the moment,

Security is "not so important"?

> the SSH protocol can be added late.

Well, I doubt that the telnet servers on any of the hosts I
deal with have implimented your new encryption scheme.

> The idea of this product is the using the graphical objects in
> the CONSOLE application!

1) That idea has been around for 25 years. Tektronix, DEC, and
others all defined terminal-based graphics standards.
They're all dead. (Though xterm still has Tek 40xx
emulation, AFAIK. And there's probably a REGIS terminal
emulator around somewhere as well). The rather elegent MGR
window system was based on "graphics in the CONSOLE
application". It's dead too.

2) What CONSOLE apps???

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Oh my GOD -- the
at SUN just fell into YANKEE
visi.com STADIUM!!

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:55:52 GMT, san wrote:
> The idea of this product is the
> using the graphical objects in the CONSOLE application!

That is why I suggested cygwin would be better. It provides an X
graphical interface for the gui X applications found on linux/unix
boxes.

In <(E-Mail Removed)>, Bit Twister:

[Snip...]

>That is why I suggested cygwin would be better. It provides an X
>graphical interface for the gui X applications found on linux/unix
>boxes.

It appears to be directed toward those with underpowered x86 consoles only
where X and especially porcine eyecandy desktops are unuseable.

Those happen also to be folks who probably can't afford additional payment
once evaluation is done.

Which brings us to the problem of furnishing source code for at least some
cursory review of security and quality offered.

If I'm buying it, I want some assurance it's not deliberate or inadvertent
malware (not saying it is; just too risky for me--YMMV).

--

Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (mklog*) in place for spambots.
Really it's (wyrd) at raytheon, dotted with com. DO NOT SPAM IT.
Standard Disclaimer: These are my opinions not Raytheon Company.

OK. I'll try to explain:

UnixSpace has a random number generator on the both sides, on the client
side (Windows) and on the server side (Linux). RNG has is the same
algorithm and length of the sequences is a long enough.

The steps:
1. client send to server a random number (i) using RSA public key.
2. server decrypt this number using RSA private key.
3. Server and client using this number for synchronization of the RNG.
After that:
Sender: output=char+RNG[i++] -> Receiver" char=input-RNG[i++];

In the channel we will have a random stream (noise). Can you decrypt
this stream on the fly? It works only for stream, of course but it works.

> 1) That idea has been around for 25 years. Tektronix, DEC, and
> others all defined terminal-based graphics standards.

I don't think so. I work with Unix about 20 years and I can say that
this interface is very convenient for me. Alpha-betic terminal are dead,
you are right. But X11 takes a lot of system recourses ant it looks ugly
anyway. (it is just my opinion). Look at screen shot, probably it will
be enough.

A.L.

Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2004-01-07, san <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>>>A few days ago UnixSpace.com announced about its new product:
>>>>Windows telnet client. Don't laugh! This is a serious. The
>>>>thing is that it is a graphical terminal but not X11:
>>>
>>>I loaded cygwin on my windows box at work. Used fvwm window
>>>manager. That allows you to use ssh for a gui connecion and
>>>you do not pass your login and password as clear text across
>>>the network like telnet does.
>>
>
>>For improved security reasons instead of using SSH protocol the
>>UnixSpace terminal is able to use an encrypted protocol based on a
>>semi-random stream.
>
>
> Big alarm bells just went off there. You think you've invented
> a better security scheme, eh? I doubt it. A _lot_ of people
> over the years have claimed to have invented a new, better
> security schemes.
>
> Almost all of them have been full of holes.
>
>
>>But it is not so important at the moment,
>
>
> Security is "not so important"?
>
>
>>the SSH protocol can be added late.
>
>
> Well, I doubt that the telnet servers on any of the hosts I
> deal with have implimented your new encryption scheme.
>
>
>>The idea of this product is the using the graphical objects in
>>the CONSOLE application!
>
>
> 1) That idea has been around for 25 years. Tektronix, DEC, and
> others all defined terminal-based graphics standards.
> They're all dead. (Though xterm still has Tek 40xx
> emulation, AFAIK. And there's probably a REGIS terminal
> emulator around somewhere as well). The rather elegent MGR
> window system was based on "graphics in the CONSOLE
> application". It's dead too.
>
> 2) What CONSOLE apps???
>

In comp.os.linux.networking san <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> OK. I'll try to explain:

Don't. Just use an ssl channel. It does this CORRECTLY.

> UnixSpace has a random number generator on the both sides, on the client
> side (Windows) and on the server side (Linux). RNG has is the same
> algorithm and length of the sequences is a long enough.

> The steps:
> 1. client send to server a random number (i) using RSA public key.
> 2. server decrypt this number using RSA private key.
> 3. Server and client using this number for synchronization of the RNG.
> After that:

If the shared RN is used directly, then there are umpteen statistical
attacks.

> Sender: output=char+RNG[i++] -> Receiver" char=input-RNG[i++];

> In the channel we will have a random stream (noise). Can you decrypt
> this stream on the fly? It works only for stream, of course but it works.

If this is a stream and not a block cipher, it's vulnerable to
disruption by somebody else dropping their own rubbish into the stream.

> > 1) That idea has been around for 25 years. Tektronix, DEC, and
> > others all defined terminal-based graphics standards.

> I don't think so. I work with Unix about 20 years and I can say that
> this interface is very convenient for me. Alpha-betic terminal are dead,

Uh, no they aren't. And I would have more confidence if after 20 years
you could spell "alphabetic".

From WordNet (r) 1.6 [wn]:

alphabetic
adj 1: relating to or expressed by an alphabet; lphabetical
writing system" [syn: {alphabetical}]
2: arranged in order according to the alphabet; ...


> you are right. But X11 takes a lot of system recourses ant it looks ugly

X has no "look". That's the whole idea! It's a substrate, a protocol.
You impose your own "look" as you like on top of it.

> anyway. (it is just my opinion). Look at screen shot, probably it will

If you misunderstand things so fundamentally as you give every
indication of doing, then there is no hope for you.


Peter

"#Harold Stevens US.972.952.3293" wrote:

> In <(E-Mail Removed)>, Bit Twister:
>
> [Snip...]
>
> >That is why I suggested cygwin would be better. It provides an X
> >graphical interface for the gui X applications found on linux/unix
> >boxes.
>
> It appears to be directed toward those with underpowered x86 consoles only
> where X and especially porcine eyecandy desktops are unuseable.
>

Not only.
1. Embedded systems.
2. Connection from behind a firewall (UnixSpace can use port 80 for
communication
with server. (Is necessary to have the UnixSpace httpd but it is a freeware).
3. The size of UnixSpace is only 64KB. It's important if you want to get
access to your server from remote Windows PC (I mean that you are not an owner
of this computer).
4. You can write distributed GUI application much faster.

By the way, the same application will be able to work with UnixSpace Java
applet too. Aapplet has almost the same functionality and it is a freeware.
Try http://www.unixspace.com and click on Demo.