Re: Re: Re: open telnet port

["Kim B. Nielsen" <kbn () daimi au dk>]

Oh.. It seemed my little post stirred something up  :)

Well, if you use a service, it's not unnecesary. The service only 
becomes unnecesary, if you have it on, and don't use it :)
And no, I don't have a backup user called test.  I'm not Joe Clueless :)

I merely suggested, that keeping another way (than ssh) into the server 
could be a valid argument for keeping a telnet running. I didn't say 
that my server has a running telnet on it.
Actually I have seen machines that couldn't be reached with ssh because 
they were too overloaded by a wild process, but it was possible to log 
in to the machine via telnet and kill the wild process, and thereby 
restore the services on that server quickly.

And, by the way, sometimes it isn't an option to seek out the machine in 
question and perform tasks on it locally, when it can be avoided. For 
instance, when there is a big distance between you and the machine.

I liked the idea of a secondary sshd running on the box, just in case. 
As a matter of fact, I think I would use the idea on my own server.

Some argued that allowing a telnet was an invitation to users to use an 
unsecure service. Thats certainly true, and it is an aspect that should 
be thought about if one plans to use an unencrypted service that 
requires a login...

Regards
/kbn


Barrie Dempster wrote:

> So you'd leave telnet on just incase ssh broke?
> Can we say "unnecessary service"?
>
> Leaving an extra avenue of attack because you might break your SSH is a
> bad bad bad bad idea. Next you'll be telling us you have a backup user
> called "test" with password "test" and uid 0, just incase you forget
> your root pass.
>
> Last resort wouldn't be running an unnecessary, unencrypted login
> service, It would be going local.
>
>
> On Thu, 2004-09-09 at 12:17, Kim B. Nielsen wrote:
>  
>
> > A reasonable use for telnet is when the ssh deamon goes down, or isn't 
> > started on bootup because of some configuration error...
> >
> > Yes, I know it isn't secure, but sometimes it can be the last resort...
> >
> > /kbn
> >
> > Dave Ewart wrote:
> >
> >    
> >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > On Thursday, 09.09.2004 at 08:13 +0200, list () nolog org wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> > >
> > > > Steve Kudlak wrote:
> > > >   
> > > >
> > > >        
> > > >
> > > > > I'll ask my friend what he does as the "just don't do x"  or just get
> > > > > rid of   x  never seems like a good idea.  If you try to connect with
> > > > > telnet rather than ssh to that box it just doesn't go through.
> > > > >     
> > > > >
> > > > >          
> > > > getting rid of telnetd is almost always a very good idea.
> > > >   
> > > >
> > > >        
> > > Quite so, as I suggested.
> > >
> > > Are there even any legitimate uses for running a telnet daemon any more?
> > > (That is a genuine question - as far as I can see, SSH is always a
> > > perfect replacement).
> > >
> > > Dave.
> > > - -- 
> > > Dave Ewart
> > > Dave.Ewart () cancer org uk
> > > Computing Manager, Epidemiology Unit, Oxford
> > > Cancer Research UK
> > > PGP: CC70 1883 BD92 E665 B840 118B 6E94 2CFD 694D E370
> > >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
> > >
> > > iD8DBQFBQBL8bpQs/WlN43ARAr0TAJ9N340MHUdsbQV3iiW2rD4sXWNjEwCg4/wm
> > > yh0Fe7/G58Dgu+pKoSJAtGM=
> > > =hCDd
> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> > > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
> > >
> > >
> > >      
>
>
>
>  

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html