Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
Forum Moderators: bakedjake
However that's an amateur perception. Interested in hearing any other differences.
I still use telnet for a few purposes, among them for proxy lynx browsing (UA= lynx but not my IP). I mainly do this for usability testing - SE's as well as disabled.
joined:Apr 13, 2001
The whole purpose of adding ssh as a separate daemon was (I admit, I'm paranoid) so that I'd be able to connect and reboot the machine if inetd went down.
It's running Debian, and has never shown any sign of problems, but... better safe than sorry.
I also have a 4097-bit SSH2 key. :)
Then, they educated me about SSH, a bit about security, etc. It's been about 4 years now since I've used telnet, and I can't recall the last time I saw a hosting company offering "telnet" without writing it, "telnet/ssh".
Most of the time now, I have to click the "ssh2" option in putty to get it to connect, as well.
telnet www.webmasterworld.com 80
And don't forget 'telnet mail.server 25' and 'telnet mail.server 110' as well. But for anything other than debugging higher level protocol servers like HTTP and and SMTP, not a chance. I wouldn't install a telnet server daemon on any of my machines, and I don't think any of the ones I use still have them. It's been years.
And don't forget 'telnet mail.server 25' and 'telnet mail.server 110' as well.
People may have confused "telnet" service (port 23) with telnet program.
Well, if the question is about 'telnetd' and 'in.telnetd' (common names for the binary that listens on port 23 to provide shell sessions via the telnet protocol), someone should have said so. I don't use *those*.
Network security isn't an issue, since the connection is one-hop through a switch. A trojan on the client machine is more of a worry, but that could snarf passwords typed into ssh just as easily as ones typed into telnet.