> It sounds like you are conflating the idea that telnet is an insecure > protocol with the fact that a server asks you to use telnet to connect > to it.
Yes, I guess I mixed those two together...you provided a good clarification > Using the telnet client to connect to a "chat server" is no less secure > than allowing any other sort of TCP connection -- it depends on the > client and server. :) > >> If I allow the firewall to open this port (so far the only open >> ports on this machine are 25, 443 and 80) will this be considered a >> security risk? > > I would, because I know nothing about the chat server in question. > > You need to work out how secure that server is, and then decide if you > are happy with the security risk it implies. > >> Other than having the chat server closed and leaving that port open >> without the service...Is there a more secure alternative? > > Well, you could look at using SSH or telnet with SSL to access the chat > server, but that only helps if you are concerned about an attack where > people steal a login to the chat server... I get the point, I was thinking in terms of (if) the chat server is written with security in mind it should be pretty much "self-contained". Nonetheless, opening the port inside an account with very little priviledges could be considered a good idea if I plan to implement this. > The process we're witnessing now is in fact the capitalist society > trying to squeeze out of each person, like blood from a stone, > whatever commercial value that person may have. > --Marc Rotenberg Boy isn't this true...
