It in not the question of sshd works or, not! In large environments,
where you have a large number of legacy hardware (like Apollo 700,
HP 3000, HP 7000, Solaris 2.5.1 etc., etc.), and the purpose of a UNIX
box is other than to run a firewall, a webserver, mail-server, or
MySQL,
plus you
Theo de Raadt wrote:
It in not the question of sshd works or, not! In large environments,
where you have a large number of legacy hardware
Well, if you have lots of legacy hardware, maybe you could just run some
well patched legacy openbsd 3.7 that still has what you need.
Brandon
What you
If you really need telnetd that badly, you could just run netcat with
a listener on port 23 (nc -l 23). It would be about as secure as
telnet ever was...
Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 17:28 -0600, Matthew S Elmore wrote:
I understand the advantages of ssh over telnet, but telnet is still
heavily used in many environments.
Telnet is a horribly insecure protocol subject to at least two attacks
by third parties with access to any
On 2005/11/08 02:58:42, Blake Darche wrote:
If you really need telnetd that badly, you could just run netcat with
a listener on port 23 (nc -l 23). It would be about as secure as
telnet ever was...
More modern telnet wasn't *quite* that bad..still, better avoided.
How about having telnet
Xavier Beaudouin wrote:
...
Personnaly I don't use telnetd for ages especialy on systems that are
security based...
there's a point.
You use OpenBSD for security.
Then you do horribly insecure things to access it.
huh?
Nick.
Martin,
That's what I was looking for. Many thanks! :)
Matt
Martin Ekendahl wrote:
http://www.gnu.org/software/inetutils/inetutils.html
Download that and just compile the telnet server
Ta Da!
-Martin
Matthew S Elmore wrote:
I cannot appear to locate a telnet daemon in 3.8 installs now. It
On Tuesday, November 8, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
Telnet is a horribly insecure protocol subject to at least two attacks
by third parties with access to any part of the network between the two
hosts. Thus, telnetd is gone for a damn good reason, that being that
it's a turd that has no place in a
Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
only telnet connections from networks where you know for sure nobody with
root access will try to hijack or eavesdrop on connections (such as a
LAN where either you are the sole admin or you know and trust the other
admins).
And where other people can't connect their own
Xavier Beaudouin wrote:
...
Personnaly I don't use telnetd for ages especialy on systems that are
security based...
there's a point.
You use OpenBSD for security.
Then you do horribly insecure things to access it.
huh?
I don't use telnetd for ages. I don't bother about the removing of
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 07:05:24AM -0500, Nick Holland wrote:
there's a point.
You use OpenBSD for security.
Then you do horribly insecure things to access it.
huh?
Nick.
Yeah using telnet these days is not a good idea.
General Question: Anyone bored and got nothing to do? Then
1 arg. for telnetd: MUDs :-)
Hello!
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 09:33:19PM +0100, Alexander Farber wrote:
1 arg. for telnetd: MUDs :-)
For MUDs you need a telnet client, but no telnet server unless I'm
wrong. The telnet client (telnet w/o 'd') is still shipped with OpenBSD.
Kind regards,
Hannah.
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 09:33:19PM +0100, Alexander Farber wrote:
1 arg. for telnetd: MUDs :-)
You want to hang a MUD behind a telnet deamon? Afaik most MUDs
know how the telnet protocol works by themselves...
Wanting to have a telnet _client_ I can understand; but I rather
use tf as a client.
At 05:28 PM 11/7/2005, Matthew S Elmore wrote:
I cannot appear to locate a telnet daemon in 3.8 installs now. It
appears to have silently disappeared between 3.7 and 3.8.
I see no mention of this in the release notes or after a cursory
search of the mailing lists. It's possible it is
telnetd was completely removed from the source tree around the end of may,
soon after 3.7 was released. As far as an alternative, why does sshd not
work? There are ssh daemons for almost all other operating systems, unless
maybe you're using OpenVMS or Plan9 (although I think there is at least one
It in not the question of sshd works or, not! In large environments,
where you have a large number of legacy hardware (like Apollo 700,
HP 3000, HP 7000, Solaris 2.5.1 etc., etc.), and the purpose of a UNIX
box is other than to run a firewall, a webserver, mail-server, or
MySQL,
plus you have
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 12:47:18PM +1100, Ioan Nemes wrote:
It in not the question of sshd works or, not! In large environments,
where you have a large number of legacy hardware (like Apollo 700,
HP 3000, HP 7000, Solaris 2.5.1 etc., etc.), and the purpose of a UNIX
box is other than to run a
On Monday 07 November 2005 20:47, Ioan Nemes wrote:
It in not the question of sshd works or, not! In large environments,
where you have a large number of legacy hardware (like Apollo 700,
HP 3000, HP 7000, Solaris 2.5.1 etc., etc.), and the purpose of a UNIX
box is other than to run a
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 12:47:18 +1100
Ioan Nemes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Above, I am not arguing pro/contra telnetd, or sshd!
I dont see the problem. The telnet command is still there, it's only
telnetd that's gone.
---
Lars Hansson
Matthew S Elmore wrote:
I cannot appear to locate a telnet daemon in 3.8 installs now. It
appears to have silently disappeared between 3.7 and 3.8.
Not really silently, but not with huge party either.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-cvsm=111700017509177w=2
I know it was announce as
Well, the parent poster asked for an alternative, so I said sshd. If he
wanted telnetd, then he wouldn't ask for an alternative, very simple. And
you act as if I had anything to do with telnetd being removed. I have
nothing to do about anything OpenBSD does, short of maybe helping to fix a
bug or
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Ioan Nemes wrote:
It in not the question of sshd works or, not! In large environments,
where you have a large number of legacy hardware (like Apollo 700,
HP 3000, HP 7000, Solaris 2.5.1 etc., etc.),
You can compile portable OpenSSH (or another ssh client) on most of
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 17:28 -0600, Matthew S Elmore wrote:
I understand the advantages of ssh over telnet, but telnet is still
heavily used in many environments.
Telnet is a horribly insecure protocol subject to at least two attacks
by third parties with access to any part of the network
24 matches
Mail list logo
