On Thu 10 Oct 2019 at 06:48:16 -0700, pe...@easthope.ca wrote: > From: David Wright, Thu, 10 Oct 2019 00:18:34 -0500 > > telnetd is ancient ... > > Recency of development is a criterion for choosing a tool. (?)
I think that depends on the tool. If telnetd works for you and you are cognisant of its drawbacks, why not use it? > The ball-peen hammer as we know it would have been developed before 1900. > Might have been prior to 1800. The pneumatic hammer was developed in the > 1920s and '30s. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_hammer_(fabrication) ) > Therefore we should always choose the pneumatic rather than the ball-peen. I'm unsure whether the analogy works. One can always choose to pick holes in an analogy and neglect the essential argument. The converstion then revolves round a different topic rather than getting to the guts of any issue. > Recency is minded but shouldn't dictate. Fair enough. > > sshd is ... secure. > > This scenario is in one machine which is running shorewall. The LAN > has another firewall. What are the risks to the telnet protocol in > this case? netcat (which I use very frequently) might be subject to the same criticisms. If I were to use it outside my LAN, I'd be inclined to use cryptcat. Kneejerk reactions against telnetd are not unknown. telnetd is not insecure; its use might be. But I think you are aware of that. -- Brian.
