On more occasions, I [wish to] use a hammer, than telnet! How could I ever reach my full potential without telnet? Maybe by hand-crafting packets... maybe by learning more about microsoft's software... Maybe I should just put the keyboard down, and start exploring some REAL potential. Of course I use telnet. I don't often spend time using it for anything REALLY useful. It comes in most handy as a understanding tool, IMO, and I'd like to hear about useful "work" (ie, think a force acting through some distance) you do with it. I advise almost everyone I talk to about telnet, NOT to use it. Why are we so damn worried about privacy when most hosting services use ftp and telnet?? Potential terrorists can easily sniff networks to abuse many many hosting accounts, to cause DDoS attacks upon our very critical networked systems. Telnet is useful as a learning tool, and as a "hacking tool". If your network administration involves debugging, why not use more advanced tools? Even if those tools use telnet... it seems kinda futile to use it manually, except for the most excellent examples that you provided. Thanks for showing the list archive readers how to spoof their spam = ) I know they can find that info elsewhere, but we should, as a LUG, make it easier for them. sdhhjf wjdl n frs sxpas, as they say!
ciao, Ben B On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 15:28, Cory Petkovsek wrote: > echo "Using Telnet as an authentication protocol over an untrusted > network is insecure. However using the tool '/usr/bin/telnet' is a > great way to connect one's keyboard with a tcp port on an ip address. > It is ancient as far as unix goes, but is not outdated. I would go as > far to say that one cannot be a good network administrator without using > it on occasion. If one is operating without it then one missing part of > one's potential. It will become out dated only when we stop using > connection oriented, text based application protocols (http, smtp, pop3, > imap, ftp, etc..). It can and should be used by sysadmins of all > platforms because they all use those text based protocols. Very often > the logs just don't show enough information and you need to try it > yourself to see what is wrong." > /dev/fd0 > > Cory > > On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 03:17:38PM -0800, Ben Barrett wrote: > > That's [at least] twice in one day, that you used telnet to prove your > > point, Cory! Pretty good for an ancient and insecure protocol. Can you > > prove any technical points using a floppy disk, next? ; ) > > > > thanks for the clarification (I know it wasn't open relay, but it seemed > > odd that the message's source wasn't evident to me)... > > > > ciao, > > > > BenB > > > > On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 14:56, Cory Petkovsek wrote: > > > An open relay means a server that re-sends outbound mail. If EFN was a > > > open relay server then it would allow mail incoming from somewhere being > > > sent to petersen-arne.com for instance. This message was sent to EFN > > > thus is not being relayed. Observe: > > > > > > $ telnet clavin.efn.org 25 > > > Trying 66.178.136.10... > > _______________________________________________ Eug-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
