Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email firstname.lastname@example.org
From: Peter Pentchev (roamringlet.net)
Date: Fri Aug 17 2001 - 07:07:49 CDT
OK, let's not go through this yet one more time.. alright?
For most cases, anything less than SSH is asking for trouble.
There *are* some cases, though, when telnet is acceptable
(properly protected LAN's), and there are even some cases when telnet
is the only really acceptable way - and yes, I've heard about all kinds
of SSH clients, including Java ones, web-based ones, etc.. but still,
there are cases when one simply has to use telnet, period.
-- You have, of course, just begun reading the sentence that you have just finished reading.
On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 02:00:26PM +0200, Carroll, D. (Danny) wrote: > Agreed > As far as I am concerned, anything less than SSH is asking for trouble. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mikhail Aronov [mailto:aronovparkline.ru] > Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 12:54 PM > To: freebsd-securityFreeBSD.ORG > Subject: Re: Silly crackers... NT is for kids... > > > On Aug 17, 2001, Roger Chien wrote: > > >Don't you know that the effect of Code Red infected machine? > >Most of them are innocent. > > > >BTW, your FreeBSD isn't absolutely secure, apply telnet-AYT patch > >already? > I was sure telnet died about 20 years ago together with passwordless > logins etc. Uncrypted session == broadcast session, isn't it?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomoFreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message