3 ms·
Not sure why everyone thinks that telnet is "not suitable for today especially in the case of security", although telnet over TLS exists. There are also certain
by an-unknown 4y ago
Not sure why everyone thinks that telnet is "not suitable for today especially in the case of security", although telnet over TLS exists. There are also certain things that telnet can do which SSH cannot (e.g. transport data for a block terminal).
And everyone who uses "telnet as a program for connecting to a server on any port and talking the protocol manually" forgot that telnet is a real protocol and this type of abuse only works if the telnet client is sufficiently dumb / doesn't negotiate parameters. There is a reason why netcat exists.
- worldsavior 4y agoTelnet does not have any standard security, at least by default. No encryption and no authentication among others.
- an-unknown 4y agoThis is factually wrong. There are even multiple different authentication and encryption schemes defined for telnet, see e.g.: https://www.iana.org/assignments/telnet-options/telnet-options.xhtml https://www.iana.org/assignments/telnet-options/telnet-optio... Just because some old and rudimentary telnetd or telnet client doesn't implement it doesn't mean it doesn't exist / isn't used.
- worldsavior 4y agoThose are data formats, and a client is needed to support those (on both endpoints). You better just use something modern like ssh instead of hunting for clients (and making sure they're reliable).