WEIRD: telnet

[Chris]

Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Chris writes:
> 
> 
>>Leaving the ports issue out of it (or not) we need to tell him why
>>Telnet is not a good thing... And that would be, Telnet passes clear 
>>text whereas ssh does not.
> 
> 
> How can he test something on port 61 without telnet?  ssh requires its
> own port, and since it is a complex protocol, it cannot connect to just
> any port as telnet can.
> 
> Additionally, the danger is in telnetd daemons, not in telnet clients,
> and the client is what is being used here.
> 
> 
>>Assuming he's setting up telnet on his device. Perhaps the user is just
>>ignorant to what ssh is.
> 
> 
> There's no danger in setting up a telnet client.  I routinely use the
> client to check that services are listening on key ports, such as smtp
> or pop3 or http.
> 

I think we're both assuming what the user is doing and the reasons as to 
why. Let's just agree that:

1. Telnet can use any ports providing the user redirects.
2. Telnet passes clear text no matter what.
3. ssh ought to be used to replace Telnet whenever possible.
4. ssh also can be made to work with any port other then 22

-- 
Best regards,
Chris

It is easier to get forgiveness than permission.