ftp == good enough for public upload and download in a chroot
environment.
scp == the preferred method for data transfer between machines. Nearly
as fast on semi-modern machines. pscp == the windows equivalent for
regault *NIXX scp.
These are fashion statements.
What is wrong with
On 28 Sep 2004, Dariusz Pietrzak wrote:
ftp == good enough for public upload and download in a chroot
environment.
scp == the preferred method for data transfer between machines. Nearly
as fast on semi-modern machines. pscp == the windows equivalent for
regault *NIXX scp.
What is wrong
I don't know what you imagine is encrypted in FTP, though, since that
is not part of the specification or the standard implementations.
oh, not part of THIS: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2246.txt specification?
that is like, what, 5 years old?
Well, what about this:
On 28 Sep 2004, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
I don't know what you imagine is encrypted in FTP, though, since that
is not part of the specification or the standard implementations.
oh, not part of THIS: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2246.txt specification?
that is like, what, 5 years old?
Why, no.
Why, no. That specification being for TLS, it has very little to do
correct, sorry, I pasted wrong link,
http://www.faqs.org/ftp/internet-drafts/draft-murray-auth-ftp-ssl-13.txt
but still, this draft is already several years old, I wrote perl ftp client
based on it ~1 year ago, last time I
On Sun, 2004-09-26 at 18:58 -0600, s. keeling wrote:
No-one should have to apologise for warning against bad security
practices. $DEITY knows the Windows crowd doesn't care about it, but
we're better than that, right? One unpatched Microsh*t box in your
LAN, and one nitwit using IE, and your
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 at 04:08:38PM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
I have no problems with scp, best part there isn't the mistaken problem
of transfer in ASCII mode, when it should be in IMAGE mode (or BINARY
mode) or Vice-Versa.
ASCII mode actually serves a purpose when you are communicating with
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 at 03:23:15AM -0400, Daniel Pittman wrote:
Fast I would concede, and easy is a matter of taste, mostly.
I don't know what you imagine is encrypted in FTP, though, since that
is not part of the specification or the standard implementations.
Unless you run an SSL-enhanced
Dale Amon wrote:
The question asked was why is anyone still using telnet
when there is ssh.
[snip]
So no, I was not replying about Debian fixes, I was replying
to the general question of 'why telnet at all'.
I know I will open a can of worms here, but telnet might actually be a
better
--- Adam Majer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know I will open a can of worms here, but telnet might actually be
a
better solution than ssh if you are using IPSec. I would say IPSec
obsoletes ssh in favour of telnet.
The reasoning behind using ssh, even when using IPSec, is a simple
matter of
On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 12:59:28PM +0100, Steve Kemp wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 01:17:47PM +0200, Milan Jurik wrote:
Yes, it's time to look at the sources and find the truth.
This appears to have been addressed by the patch in DSA-070-1,
so you should be able to apply that to
On Mon, 2004-09-27 at 09:24 +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
The point remains that while telnet/ftp should be treated as deprecated
Why is that exactly?
There is no replacement for ftp, and I don't know of any problems with it?
Please enlighten me.
ftp == good enough for public upload and
On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 04:08:38PM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
On Mon, 2004-09-27 at 09:24 +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
The point remains that while telnet/ftp should be treated as deprecated
Why is that exactly?
There is no replacement for ftp, and I don't know of any problems with it?
Quoting Jan Minar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Unfortunately, scp requires a shell access
http://www.sublimation.org/scponly/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 02:54:49PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Jan Minar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Unfortunately, scp requires a shell access
http://www.sublimation.org/scponly/
I've been using scponly for a while now as a replacement for FTP. Never
had any complaints or problems.
I
On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 02:54:49PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Jan Minar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Unfortunately, scp requires a shell access
http://www.sublimation.org/scponly/
Of course, but this is even more non-standard then ssh proper, and a
recent project, so no scponly in woody btw.
Hi,
so, again, for some locked people. There is maybe an application in
Debian which is remotely exploitable. This application will be probably
also in the next stable release. This thread is about this situation. I
(and some other people) use telnetd only in very specific situations
where
On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 01:17:47PM +0200, Milan Jurik wrote:
Yes, it's time to look at the sources and find the truth.
This appears to have been addressed by the patch in DSA-070-1,
so you should be able to apply that to current sources with a small
amount of work.
Although the
On Friday, 24 September 2004, at 16:15:09 -0600,
s. keeling wrote:
Is anyone still using telnet when there's ssh? Why? I wouldn't even
use it inside my own firewalled LAN. ssh is just better.
Yes, many people have a curious sense of computer security. They ask
for mega-cool (and MEGA
On Saturday, 25 September 2004, at 10:34:43 -0500,
hanasaki wrote:
When IPSEC is being used, telnet works the same; however is secure
because it, like all traffic, is sent over a transparent tunnel.
But an IPsec tunnel encrypts traffic just between the tunnel endpoints.
But this need not to
On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 12:13:26PM +0200, Jan Minar wrote:
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 04:15:09PM -0600, s. keeling wrote:
Is anyone still using telnet when there's ssh? Why? I wouldn't even
use it inside my own firewalled LAN. ssh is just better.
I've been told telnet *does* make a lot of
Quoting Milan Jurik ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
The question isn't if stop using telnet. The question is why Debian's
telnetd is still vunerable.
I'd apologise for the off-topic digression -- if I thought I'd given
offence. ;-
--
Cheers,A raccoon tangled with a 23,000 volt line, today.
Incoming from Rick Moen:
Quoting Milan Jurik ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
The question isn't if stop using telnet. The question is why Debian's
telnetd is still vunerable.
I'd apologise for the off-topic digression -- if I thought I'd given
offence. ;-
No-one should have to apologise for
In the non-unix world, telnet is still a necessity :(
Yes, I have putty on *my* windows boxen... But there are still
significant numbers of boxes that I use - MVS/VM (z/OS), W2k, etc.
that require me to allow directed telnet to my laptop/workstation.
Just because there is a H2 on the block,
Quoting Richard A Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Yes, I have putty on *my* windows boxen... But there are still
significant numbers of boxes that I use - MVS/VM (z/OS)...
OpenSSH works on MVS. See:
http://www.stdnet.com/uploads/media/MOVEit-DMZ-Compatible-Clients.PDF.
, W2k, etc.
Innumerable
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 04:15:09PM -0600, s. keeling wrote:
Is anyone still using telnet when there's ssh? Why? I wouldn't even
use it inside my own firewalled LAN. ssh is just better.
I've been told telnet *does* make a lot of sense where IPSEC is set up.
Cheers,
--
Jan
Jan Minar wrote:
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 04:15:09PM -0600, s. keeling wrote:
Is anyone still using telnet when there's ssh? Why? I wouldn't even
use it inside my own firewalled LAN. ssh is just better.
I've been told telnet *does* make a lot of sense where IPSEC is set up.
Cheers,
When IPSEC
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Richard A Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Yes, I have putty on *my* windows boxen... But there are still
significant numbers of boxes that I use - MVS/VM (z/OS)...
OpenSSH works on MVS. See:
Quoting Richard A Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
[Snip MVS mainframe priesthood standing in way of OpenSSH installation.]
I typically use cygwin on *MY* laptop, but when away from that -
I try not to install random software on other's boxen
The usual remedy is to pull down putty.exe (tiny) and
On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 10:34:43AM -0500, hanasaki wrote:
Jan Minar wrote:
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 04:15:09PM -0600, s. keeling wrote:
Is anyone still using telnet when there's ssh? Why? I wouldn't even
use it inside my own firewalled LAN. ssh is just better.
I've been told telnet *does*
Hi,
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Richard A Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
The point remains that while telnet/ftp should be treated as deprecated
when feasible, sometimes there just aren't alternatives.
My entire document (http://linuxmafia.com/ssh) is devoted to
Incoming from James Renken:
Greetings,
I noticed the message below on BUGTRAQ last weekend, reporting a remote
root compromise in telnetd. I haven't seen any discussion of this on the
list archives, nor a new DSA. Am I missing something?
Is anyone still using telnet when there's ssh?
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 04:15:09PM -0600, s. keeling wrote:
Is anyone still using telnet when there's ssh? Why? I wouldn't even
use it inside my own firewalled LAN. ssh is just better.
Unfortuneately if you use Cisco gear you are pretty
much stuck. Some of the older stuff just doesn't
have
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 11:24:54PM +0100, Dale Amon wrote:
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 04:15:09PM -0600, s. keeling wrote:
Is anyone still using telnet when there's ssh? Why? I wouldn't even
use it inside my own firewalled LAN. ssh is just better.
Unfortuneately if you use Cisco gear you
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, s. keeling wrote:
I noticed the message below on BUGTRAQ last weekend, reporting a remote
root compromise in telnetd. I haven't seen any discussion of this on the
list archives, nor a new DSA. Am I missing something?
Is anyone still using telnet when there's ssh?
On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 08:28:13AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Cisco gear contains the Debian telnetd? And if that's true, how would us
releasing a DSA for it necessarily help all the Cisco routers out there.
We're not talking about the general intelligence of using telnet (or, at
least,
Quoting James Renken ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Agreed - but some of my customers, even after I've pointed out the risks,
just don't want to go through the trouble of changing from their preferred
Telnet programs.
ObNivenAndPournelle: Think of it as evolution in action.
--
Cheers,
Rick Moen
On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 18:35, Dale Amon wrote:
On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 08:28:13AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Cisco gear contains the Debian telnetd? And if that's true, how would us
releasing a DSA for it necessarily help all the Cisco routers out there.
We're not talking about the
38 matches
Mail list logo
