full-disclosure - Re: Re: open telnet port

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: bkfsec at sdf.lonestar.org (Barry Fitzgerald)
Subject: Re: Re: open telnet port

Dave Ewart wrote:

>
>
>Quite so, as I suggested.
>
>Are there even any legitimate uses for running a telnet daemon any more?
>(That is a genuine question - as far as I can see, SSH is always a
>perfect replacement).
>
>  
>
Sure - a situation where a system needs a low-bandwidth/low CPU-use 
shell-based communication protocol and sniffing is not an issue for 
whatever reason.

I agree -- SSHd over telnetd anyday.  However, you asked for a genuine 
scenario where telnetd could be legitimately used and they do exist.  
I'm not saying that it's the greatest security ever, but encryption != 
security, but it can be used as part of a plan to secure a network in 
the right circumstances (most circumstances).  What security tools one 
uses depends on what the situation is.

SSHd doesn't come with a 0-cost basis.  It's relatively low cost, but 
there are circumstances where resources may not be available enough to 
justify it's use in that situation.

             -Barry