On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 04:13:27PM +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Colin J. Raven writes:
1. Unless you *must* use telnet for some reason, it's a good idea to
turn it off.
Telnet is port 23; this is port 61 (NI-MAIL, whatever that is). Whoever
answers will be whatever program is
Fafa Diliha Romanova writes:
what's with this badly written error message?
# telnet localhost:61
localhost:21: hostname nor servname provided, or not known
Replace the colon with a space in the command line.
--
Anthony
___
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Fafa Diliha Romanova writes:
what's with this badly written error message?
# telnet localhost:61
localhost:21: hostname nor servname provided, or not known
Replace the colon with a space in the command line.
Agreed - however, rethink using Telnet in favor of ssh.
--
Best
On Feb 13 at 09:53, Fafa Diliha Romanova ASKED:
what's with this badly written error message?
# telnet localhost:61
localhost:21: hostname nor servname provided, or not known
have somebody compromised my telnet maybe?
No, the syntax is incorrect
telnet hostname [space] port_number
so in this case:
Chris writes:
Agreed - however, rethink using Telnet in favor of ssh.
I don't see how SSH would help when using telnet to connect to arbitrary
ports.
--
Anthony
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
Colin J. Raven writes:
1. Unless you *must* use telnet for some reason, it's a good idea to
turn it off.
Telnet is port 23; this is port 61 (NI-MAIL, whatever that is). Whoever
answers will be whatever program is listening on port 61, but it won't
be a standard telnet daemon.
--
Anthony
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Chris writes:
Agreed - however, rethink using Telnet in favor of ssh.
I don't see how SSH would help when using telnet to connect to arbitrary
ports.
Leaving the ports issue out of it (or not) we need to tell him why
Telnet is not a good thing... And that would be,
Chris writes:
Leaving the ports issue out of it (or not) we need to tell him why
Telnet is not a good thing... And that would be, Telnet passes clear
text whereas ssh does not.
How can he test something on port 61 without telnet? ssh requires its
own port, and since it is a complex
On Sunday 13 February 2005 09:53 am, Fafa Diliha Romanova wrote:
what's with this badly written error message?
# telnet localhost:61
localhost:21: hostname nor servname provided, or not known
It means it tried to look up localhost:61 and couldn't make sense out of it.
I believe servname is
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Chris writes:
Leaving the ports issue out of it (or not) we need to tell him why
Telnet is not a good thing... And that would be, Telnet passes clear
text whereas ssh does not.
How can he test something on port 61 without telnet? ssh requires its
own port, and since it
Chris writes:
I think we're both assuming what the user is doing and the reasons as to
why. Let's just agree that:
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
On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 09:22:45AM -0600, Chris wrote:
2. Telnet passes clear text no matter what.
Not in a Kerberos environment it doesn't, nor in an transport-mode IPsec
environment.
Related to that is connections where transport-level encryption
typically doesn't matter: connecting over a
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
*snip*
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.
Regardless of what you assume - the user didn't indicate the reasons for
using telnet nor did he relay the reason(s)
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
Valentin Nechayev writes:
If I show screenshot with ssh'ing to port 443, will it be convincing?
Yes. I'd like to see how it's done, if it can be done, although I'm
still now sure how it would be useful. But I'd rather see it used to
connect to ports like 25 or 80.
Not current telnet,
* Colin J. Raven [EMAIL PROTECTED] [0205 15:05]:
Some tangential observations:
1. Unless you *must* use telnet for some reason, it's a good idea to
turn it off.
This is a telnet client, how would you 'turn that off'.
This is a very common way to test if a socket is listening, and there are
16 matches
Mail list logo
