full-disclosure - Re: 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: Dave.Ewart at cancer.org.uk (Dave Ewart)
Subject: Re: Re: Re: open telnet port

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

On Thursday, 09.09.2004 at 13:28 +0000, ktabic wrote:

> > > getting rid of telnetd is almost always a very good idea.
> > 
> > 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).
> > 
> How about, as a service to enable as you are updating SSH remotely
> from the other side of the country to fix the most recent problem
> security problem and need a backup system to get into the server in
> the event that something goes wrong?

I'd suggest that running a *second* SSH server on another port would be
safer than running Telnet, in this context.

Given that, in the above description, you're basically advocating that
your *only* use of Telnet would be to send the root password across the
'net to troubleshoot SSH :-)

Dave.
- -- 
Dave Ewart
Dave.Ewart@...cer.org.uk
Computing Manager, Epidemiology Unit, Oxford
Cancer Research UK
PGP: CC70 1883 BD92 E665 B840 118B 6E94 2CFD 694D E370

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBQF0BbpQs/WlN43ARAgnkAKCiWJBtWmcxwQGf0eEGzhVwkgsXBwCg8/GA
w0YF7vlE0TtRBsV/KWUZKNo=
=hWtG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----