[Coco] Anyone still play text adventure games?

[John Kent]

That was pretty much my understanding of it too, but I was concerned 
that if I used port forwarding on my router to a specific IP address on 
the subnet, whether there was some way to gain access to my local area 
network, by redirecting packets off the device in some manner say via 
some other port which might be open.

On 25/05/2011 1:18 AM, William Astle wrote:
> On 2011-05-24 07:17, Tony Cappellini wrote:
>> You do realize how easy it is to hack into your server right?
>> Telnet isn't secure, and should never be used.
> Okay, that might be overstating things some.
>
> Telnet on its own is not necessarily insecure. Having some service that
> can be accessed via telnet does not magically add security holes. (SMTP,
> for instance, can be accessed via telnet.)
>
> What makes telnet insecure is that there is no encryption on the
> communication. That simply means it's possible, under the right
> circumstances, for a third party to sniff the communications and know
> what you typed and what the server sent you. A modern switched wired
> network is unlikely to be sniffable but wireless is a different ballgame.
>
> In the case of Bedlam, there is no authentication or other sensitive
> information. Thus, Telnet does not contribute to or detract from the
> security of the server as a whole.
>
> A problem with the coding of the service (the Bedlam implementation in
> this case) may allow someone access to arbitrary things on the server,
> but this would still be a problem using SSH or any other means of remote
> access.
>
> Thus, simply having a Bedlam game on port 6809, which one accesses
> normally using telnet, does NOT make the machine any more inherently
> hackable than SMTP or SSH or any other "public" service does.
>
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>

-- 
http://www.johnkent.com.au
http://members.optusnet.com.au/jekent