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: proach at gmail.com (Paul W. Roach III)
Subject: Re: Re: open telnet port

Generally, I run a seperate sshd on a different port while I'm
upgrading, then disable it.  There is never a reason to run telnetd.



On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 13:28:51 +0000, ktabic <lists@...bic.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-09-09 at 09:23 +0100, Dave Ewart 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?
> 
> ktabic
> --
> Give me the strength to change what I can, the inability to accept what
> I can't and the incapacity to tell the difference -- Calvin
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
> 
>