From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 13 16:23:18 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6C9F16A4CE for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 16:23:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from burka.carrier.kiev.ua (burka.carrier.kiev.ua [193.193.193.107]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B878943D31 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 16:23:16 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from netch@lucky.net) Received: from burka.carrier.kiev.ua (netch@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by burka.carrier.kiev.ua with ESMTP id j1DGN8Xc009725; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:23:11 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from netch@burka.carrier.kiev.ua) Received: (from netch@localhost) by burka.carrier.kiev.ua (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id j1DGN8Yh009722; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:23:08 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from netch) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:23:08 +0200 From: Valentin Nechayev To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20050213162308.GA95890@lucky.net> References: <20050213145302.14A9E4BDAA@ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com> <1736042877.20050213155911@wanadoo.fr> <420F6BAF.8060304@makeworld.com> <1374659210.20050213161054@wanadoo.fr> <420F6ED9.8010301@makeworld.com> <285864121.20050213161830@wanadoo.fr> <420F70C5.60006@makeworld.com> <854574739.20050213163818@wanadoo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <854574739.20050213163818@wanadoo.fr> X-42: On X-Verify-Sender: Address has been verified (burka.carrier.kiev.ua) X-Antivirus: Dr.Web (R) for Mail Servers on kozlik.carrier.kiev.ua host X-Antivirus-Code: 100000 Subject: Re: WEIRD: telnet X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: netch@lucky.net List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 16:23:18 -0000 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-