[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Full-Disclosure] Re: Re: Re: open telnet port
- To: full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [Full-Disclosure] Re: Re: Re: open telnet port
- From: Dave Ewart <Dave.Ewart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 14:39:13 +0100
-----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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
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-----
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html