On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 13:50 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 05:16:26PM +0000, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > Package: busybox > > Version: 1.27.2-1 > > Severity: wishlist > > Tags: patch > > > > Dear Maintainers, > > > > Please consider enabling telnetd in the busybox package. A tiny and > > trivial patch to set the config is attached inline. A rebuild with > > that > > change seems to work fine. > > > > As much as I wish it wasn't the case, telnet is still widely used, > > especially in the ISP/telco world. Telcos networking engineers > > expect > > to be able to telnet into boxes in their network even today. > > As much as I don't mind doing weird things in support of weird use > cases, in this particular case I think that would be sending out the > wrong message. We shouldn't do that, IMO, but rather encourage people > to > switch to SSH instead of telnet. > > It might make sense to add some documentation that explains why > telnet > isn't supported, however. I wish that could happen, I swear. Having to support it is just... "fun". :-( We tried. Everybody knows it's bad, insecure, generally horrible and all that. But at the very least until all the network operators trained by a certain network hardware vendor will retire demand for telnet is not going away, sadly. I wish I could do anything to change that. > As an aside, can you tell which telco's we are talking about? Right now it's an North American provider with a three characters name ;-) But I've yet to find one telco that doesn't demand telnet, unfortunately. They are not alone in that. Thanks! -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part