> 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@netmud.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 2:34 PM
> To: kclug@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@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@violet.jayhawks.net]
> > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 12:31 PM
> > To: kclug@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@jayhawks.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>