Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 16:18:30 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: WEIRD: telnet Message-ID: <285864121.20050213161830@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <420F6ED9.8010301@makeworld.com> References: <20050213145302.14A9E4BDAA@ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com> <1736042877.20050213155911@wanadoo.fr> <420F6BAF.8060304@makeworld.com> <1374659210.20050213161054@wanadoo.fr> <420F6ED9.8010301@makeworld.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Chris writes: > Leaving the ports issue out of it (or not) we need to tell him why > Telnet is not a good thing... And that would be, Telnet passes clear > text whereas ssh does not. How can he test something on port 61 without telnet? ssh requires its own port, and since it is a complex protocol, it cannot connect to just any port as telnet can. Additionally, the danger is in telnetd daemons, not in telnet clients, and the client is what is being used here. > Assuming he's setting up telnet on his device. Perhaps the user is just > ignorant to what ssh is. There's no danger in setting up a telnet client. I routinely use the client to check that services are listening on key ports, such as smtp or pop3 or http. -- Anthony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?285864121.20050213161830>