delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
X-Recipient: | archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com |
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: | No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW |
X-Spam-Check-By: | sourceware.org |
X-ASG-Debug-ID: | 1265730666-259d00070004-w5GHUG |
X-Barracuda-URL: | http://10.10.1.48:8000/cgi-bin/mark.cgi |
X-ASG-Whitelist: | Sender |
Message-ID: | <018e01caa99f$b9314ab0$aa01090a@amanda> |
From: | "Tomasz Pona" <koczis AT parasoft DOT com> |
To: | <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com> |
References: | <loom DOT 20100208T154733-271 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <00fa01caa970$d351b8a0$aa01090a AT amanda> <4B716FBC DOT 2060109 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm> |
X-ASG-Orig-Subj: | Re: telnet connected but without response |
Subject: | Re: telnet connected but without response |
Date: | Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:50:16 +0100 |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
X-Barracuda-Connect: | dove2.parasoft.com[10.10.1.53] |
X-Barracuda-Start-Time: | 1265730681 |
X-Barracuda-Virus-Scanned: | by Barracuda Spam & Virus Firewall at parasoft.com |
Mailing-List: | contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm |
List-Id: | <cygwin.cygwin.com> |
List-Subscribe: | <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com> |
List-Archive: | <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/> |
List-Post: | <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com> |
List-Help: | <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs> |
Sender: | cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com |
Mail-Followup-To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
Delivered-To: | mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
Note-from-DJ: | This may be spam |
Charles Wilson wrote: > Bingo! telnet is an inherently unsafe technology which exchanges > passwords in plaintext, where any schmuck with a packet sniffer can see > your password. Combined that with wireless ethernet, and you're just > screaming "HACK ME!". > > If you have ANY choice in the matter, use ssh instead. I'm behind a relatively well maintained firewall and I don't think me and my colleagues should suspect aech other here. ;) It's of course a very slight chance of some fake technician sneaking here and there and connecting to our LAN, but well... sh*t just happens. Out of necessity we're using SSH now, but it looks like telnet is a lot easier to maintain and understand: we had inetd configured already and we had to enable sshd. Obviously ssh-config scripts are doing great job setting defaults, but when reading doc you're immediately attacked by the overburden of information on: - public key generation, - forwarding of the authentication agent connection - port forwarding - pre- and post- authentication - privilege separation and special inaccessible account demand - access rights problems and another special account demand - this and that being an option and a subject for configuration Just reading the docs makes me feel that I probably understand 20% of what is written there (considering the language used) and I immediately tend to love our old good firewall + telnet solution. I'm pretty convinced I'm not alone... Thanks for looking at this Chuck. Regards, Tomasz Pona -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |