Re: Authentication for telnet.
On Thu 10 Oct 2019 at 06:48:16 -0700, peter@easthope.ca wrote:
> From: David Wright, Thu, 10 Oct 2019 00:18:34 -0500
> > telnetd is ancient ...
>
> Recency of development is a criterion for choosing a tool. (?)
I think that depends on the tool. If telnetd works for you and you are
cognisant of its drawbacks, why not use it?
> The ball-peen hammer as we know it would have been developed before 1900.
> Might have been prior to 1800. The pneumatic hammer was developed in the
> 1920s and '30s. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_hammer_(fabrication) )
> Therefore we should always choose the pneumatic rather than the ball-peen.
I'm unsure whether the analogy works. One can always choose to pick
holes in an analogy and neglect the essential argument. The converstion
then revolves round a different topic rather than getting to the guts of
any issue.
> Recency is minded but shouldn't dictate.
Fair enough.
> > sshd is ... secure.
>
> This scenario is in one machine which is running shorewall. The LAN
> has another firewall. What are the risks to the telnet protocol in
> this case?
netcat (which I use very frequently) might be subject to the same
criticisms. If I were to use it outside my LAN, I'd be inclined to
use cryptcat.
Kneejerk reactions against telnetd are not unknown. telnetd is not
insecure; its use might be. But I think you are aware of that.
--
Brian.
Reply to: