> I don't think anyone uses telnet for it *original* purpose. Telnet is still popular in some segments other than Desktops. For example, many routers support the protocol. Old skool admin are going to use telnet. They will not be caught using a web page to configure their routers. See, for example, Telnet Vulnerability Affecting Cisco Products: June 2020, <https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/csa/cisco-sa-telnetd-EFJrEzPx.html>.
Jeff On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 8:03 PM Robert Heller <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't think anyone uses telnet for it *original* purpose. > > It is useful for *debuging* a Tcp/Ip server, since telnet can take a port > number as a parameter. That is, suppose you write a server listening on port > 12021, one can test the program with the command > > telnet localhost 12021 > > And then type what you would expect a client for your server would send and > see if the server responds properly. > > At Fri, 13 Mar 2026 21:16:24 +0000 "Jonathan Dowland" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Fri Mar 13, 2026 at 1:42 PM GMT, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > > FYI... from the OSS-Security mailing list at > > > <https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/03/13/1>. This > > > caught my eye: > > > > > > Debian's switch from netkit telnet to inetutils telnet during > > > the Debian 12 (Bookworm) cycle reintroduced this vulnerability > > > to the default installation. > > > > Hmm. inetutils-telnet is Priority: standard. (It's the only binary > > package built from inetutils source which is). At some point in time, it > > would have been reasonable to expect a telnet client on any system. I'm > > not sure if that's still true: it's probably due for assessment. I'm not > > planning on pursuing this myself, though.
