Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 16:38:18, atkielski.anthony wrote about "Re: WEIRD: telnet":
>> 1. Telnet can use any ports providing the user redirects. >> 2. Telnet passes clear text no matter what. >> 3. ssh ought to be used to replace Telnet whenever possible. >> 4. ssh also can be made to work with any port other then 22 > %ssh -p 21 localhost > ssh: connect to host localhost.atkielski.com port 21: Connection refused > % If I show screenshot with ssh'ing to port 443, will it be convincing? It is really production-using (there is a place where it is used to pass overrestricted firewall thru proxy server with authorization). Another department allows only connect to port 25 thru semi-secret SOCKS, so port 25 is also working at some host as SSH. > Telnet uses a protocol that is identical to many other protocols apart > from the text of the messages exchanged. SSH requires a specific > handshaking sequence that other services on arbitrary ports do not > support. So if you want to test the SMTP port, or the POP3 port, or any > one of quite a few other ports, you must use telnet. Not current telnet, because it interprets 0xFF in wrong way. See bin/52032 > Since the original poster is trying to connect to port 61, I assume he > is using telnet to test the service on that port, and so SSH is > irrelevant. It may be true or untrue. ;)) -netch- _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"