Another good reason for telnet

[Chris Midkiff]

Since the subject now seems to be turning to SSH clients, if you install
CYGWIN on Windows, you can use the OpenSSH client directly, and it's free
(as in speech).  Cygwin also allows you to use most other bash utilities.

Chris Midkiff

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kclug at marauder.illiana.net
[mailto:owner-kclug at marauder.illiana.net]On Behalf Of Glenn Crocker
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 3:22 PM
To: kclug at kclug.org
Subject: RE: Another good reason for telnet

> TelnetD running on your server allowing people to login via telnet is BAD
> SSHD running on your server allowing people to login is GOOD

Definitely.

BTW, I use SecureCRT (also not free), and it's nice.  Lots of maturity to it
(stuff like rectangular text selection and "Print Selection").

-glenn

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glenn Crocker [mailto:glenn at netmud.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 2:34 PM
> To: kclug at kclug.org
> Subject: RE: Another good reason for telnet
>
>
>
> But all the other protocols that are telnet-compatible have security
> problems.  POP3, for example, really should be encrypted.  That's your
> password flying over the socket for all the world to see.  Same with FTP.
>
> On the HTTP side, I'd like to see more https usage just for
> privacy reasons.
> There's really no reason for unencrypted data to ever move point-to-point.
> In that way, I'd say that the insecure protocols telnet is compatible with
> are "bad".
>
> -glenn
>
> Glenn Crocker
> Netmud   http://www.netmud.com
> 913-451-7785, glenn at netmud.com
>
>
>
> > I may have lost the point here at some place along the line, but the
> > security issue isn't telnet client, it is telnet running on the
> server as
> > far as I know.
> >
> > When you do things like telnet to port 80 to act like a browser,
> > that isn't
> > using telnet on the server, you are just acting to the web server
> > like a web
> > browser by using telnet.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Heryer [mailto:jheryer at violet.jayhawks.net]
> > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 12:31 PM
> > To: kclug at kclug.org
> > Subject: Re: Another good reason for telnet
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, DCT Jared Smith wrote:
> > > Frankly, if you follow my logic here, you'll see: Woe be the
> > day that Bill
> >
> > > Gates (rather, his heir) dispenses the only 'certified' encryption
> > protocol
> > > on the 'Net. The best way to keep that from happening is to use Telnet
> > > responsibly. No need to use it to login to shell, but within a stout,
> > logged,
> > > firewall even that should be possible.
> >
> > Client to server ssh usage is primarly *nix thing. The day Microsoft
> > developes a certified, encrypted, remote session it will be from one
> > windows machine to another. Primarily used as the trasportation
> of choice
> > for the new generation of virii. I can't forsee the guys working on
> > openssh supporting the new microsoft encryption scheme (if it
> > ever were to
> > exist).
> >
> > 'Responsible' telnet usage goes hand in hand with 'responsible' packet
> > sniffer usage. The only thing a firewall will do for you is
> > prevent telnet
> > usage and that my friend ... is a goodthang(tm)
> >
> > > Good Lord, we have to trust someone, somewhere.
> >
> > Yeah... right.
> >
> > --
> > John Heryer
> > jheryer at jayhawks.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>