251–260 of 414 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://codeberg.org/inetutils/inetutils/commit/fa3245ac8c28...
That's crazy. This is core business critical software but they just YOLO critical changes without any automated tests? this PR would be insta-rejected in the small SAAS shop I work at.
/s
Never mind telnetd. Tier 1 transit providers doing port filtering is EXTREMELY alarming. They have partitioned the Internet, and in a way that automatic routing (BGP) can't get around.
> Tier 1 transit providers doing port filtering is EXTREMELY alarming. I was admining a small ISP when blaster and its variants hit. Port filtering 139 and the rest was the easiest way to deal with it, and almost over night most of the ISPs blocked it, and we were better for it. There was a time when if you'd put a fresh XP install on the Internet you'd get 5-10 minutes until it would get restarted. I guess if you're…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you think you can do better you're welcome to do better. I say this without a hint of sarcasm. This is how open source works. It's a do–ocracy, not a democracy. Whoever makes a telnet server gets to decide how the telnet server works and how much testing it gets before release.
Maybe the lesson here is to stop letting the GNU folks do things, if this is what they do. This is only one example of craziness coming out of the GNU camp.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GP's concern isn't a practical one, it's ultimately about net neutrality. It's not the ISP's job to discriminate against traffic—it's their job to deliver it. This may seem like a good idea, and frankly is likely a net-positive thing, but it is literally the definition of "ISP decides what apps its customers can and cannot use." I share the concern and don't really like it either.
It's not a net-neutrality issue because they're not banking on any alternative. Net-neutrality law doesn't work like that. Service providers still get to filter stuff. What's illegal for an ISP is e.g. to give VoIP services other than their own a lower priority. That would tie in customers to use their own service and they could even charge more for it. Net neutrality means a level playing field for services on the I…
Never mind telnetd. Tier 1 transit providers doing port filtering is EXTREMELY alarming. They have partitioned the Internet, and in a way that automatic routing (BGP) can't get around.
Port 23 has been filtered by most providers for decades. This is why everything converges on using TLS over 443 or a high port number. I don't see this as a huge deal, and especially not one deserving all caps rants about censorship. Save those for things like FOSTA/SESTA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://codeberg.org/inetutils/inetutils/commit/fa3245ac8c28...
That link goes to a page full of random garbage. No commits there to be seen. Apparently the owners of that website don't like my choice of user agent, and have decided to punish me accordingly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> started blocking telnet's default port But that's 23 and smtp is 25.
SMTP has and is almost blocked everywhere to dissuade spam.
Why would somebody read something that somebody couldn't be bothered to write? This article is AI slop.
Why are people still using telnet across the internet in this century? Was this _all_ attack traffic? (OK, I know one ancient talker that uses it - but on a very non-standard port so a port 23 block wouldn't be relevant)
Hams use it over packet radio sometimes since encryption is forbidden on the amateur bands. IMHO we need a good telnet replacement that sends signed data. Most people interpret signatures as allowed under FCC rules, just not encryption.
I'm breaking a tonne of FCC rules right now.