Kerberos does not do X11-forwarding, for example.
True that.
Nor does Kerberos provide remote file copying (such as sftp and scp).
Kerberos provides those features with Kerberized ftp, rcp, etc.
The main feature of SSH is that I can establish a secure connection from point a to point b, more than just secure authorization but having the entire session encrypted. Kerberos does not do that.
Yes, it does.
It was not designed to.
Yes, it was.
As I've said, Kerberos can be used to provide the authentication mechanism for SSH.
True.
This should be a hint that they are not replacements for each other.
Not true.
Indeed, one could have an SSH kerberized intranet that uses SSH as the remote login facility!
Not true.
I'd argue that SSH would be a massive need in that environment.
Not really true. With Kerberos: telnet, ftp, rsh, rcp, etc., etc., automagically become secure. Not only in terms of authentication, but also in terms of strong encryption of sessions.
To compare them is to compare apples to buffets.
Not true.
My point was that K and SSH are *not* replacements for each other. It still stands. They are different things with different purposes.
Actually, K is really /more/ than just a replacement for SSH.
Peace out,
Derek