1. Forum
  2. FSXNet
  3. FSX MYS

  • telnet Secure

    From gallaxial@21:1/129 to All on Fri Feb 28 15:47:52 2020
    Hi,all

    I Found that port 992 support telnet SSL/TLS
    does this is allready project to be add in mystic

    THX

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/02/29 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: SpaceSST BBS (21:1/129)
  • From Al@21:4/106.1 to gallaxial on Fri Feb 28 14:15:30 2020
    I Found that port 992 support telnet SSL/TLS
    does this is allready project to be add in mystic

    That's not a new thing. I first saw telnets around 2005. It's not
    something that's got a lot of coverage. Back then when I first saw it I
    never paid much attention to it although I was intrigued.

    It's worth looking at for sure. It could only ever be used by BBSs and
    clients that are capable of using it.

    Ttyl :-),
    Al

    --- MagickaBBS v0.14alpha (Linux/x86_64)
    * Origin: Equinox BBS - Penticton, BC Canada (21:4/106.1)
  • From g00r00@21:1/108 to Al on Sat Feb 29 06:06:52 2020
    I Found that port 992 support telnet SSL/TLS
    does this is allready project to be add in mystic

    That's not a new thing. I first saw telnets around 2005. It's not something that's got a lot of coverage. Back then when I first saw it I never paid much attention to it although I was intrigued.

    It's worth looking at for sure. It could only ever be used by BBSs and clients that are capable of using it.

    I can support TELNETS relatively easily (assuming its just telnet + TLS) but there really aren't clients that support it and the BBS clients all seem to be using SSH instead.

    I am not sure I see the benefit of adding it, but I am certainly open to hear other people's reasons why who may want it.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/02/29 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Sector 7 (21:1/108)
  • From buanzo@21:2/161 to g00r00 on Fri Feb 28 20:39:05 2020
    On 29 Feb 2020, g00r00 said the following...
    I am not sure I see the benefit of adding it, but I am certainly open to hear other people's reasons why who may want it.

    Well, the SSH ecosystem is prone to a number of interesting attack scenarios, and its configuration (at least in the case of OpenSSH) can be quite complex, considering all the features. If it is not much of a hassle, I very much
    would like to see telnets being supported following the "if it is just telnet
    + TLS".

    Cheers!

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A45 2020/02/18 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: DaRK Game BBS (21:2/161)
  • From Al@21:4/106.1 to g00r00 on Fri Feb 28 17:14:37 2020
    I can support TELNETS relatively easily (assuming its just telnet +
    TLS) but there really aren't clients that support it and the BBS
    clients all seem to be using SSH instead.

    Many years ago when I first saw that I thought to myself, "we'll have
    secure telnet in time". I haven't thought much about it since.

    It would be good to have a secure telnet since that is still the most
    used protocol for connecting to a BBS.

    I'm not sure if we could convince people to use secure telnet with port
    992. It would be a start though, and at least folks would have a choice
    in being secure over telnet.

    Ttyl :-),
    Al

    --- MagickaBBS v0.14alpha (Linux/x86_64)
    * Origin: Equinox BBS - Penticton, BC Canada (21:4/106.1)
  • From g00r00@21:1/108 to buanzo on Sat Feb 29 11:24:48 2020
    Well, the SSH ecosystem is prone to a number of interesting attack scenarios, and its configuration (at least in the case of OpenSSH) can
    be quite complex, considering all the features. If it is not much of a hassle, I very much would like to see telnets being supported following the "if it is just telnet + TLS".

    Mystic doesn't use OpenSSH and Cryptlib hasn't had the same vulnerabilities that OpenSSH has either (not that it hasn't had some). But I do agree that is overly complex to implement if you weren't using a third party library.

    I don't think there are any BBS terminals that do TELNETS though, just telnet, rlogin and SSH? SSH provides the same type of secure access to the BBS with the added ability to bypass logging in too. Its also supported by the major BBS terminals and PUTTY (not sure if PUTTY does telnets or not)

    I could add it into NetRunner pretty easily alongside Mystic, I just have to think about what the purpose of it would be.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/02/29 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Sector 7 (21:1/108)
  • From g00r00@21:1/108 to Al on Sat Feb 29 11:25:47 2020
    I can support TELNETS relatively easily (assuming its just telnet + TLS) but there really aren't clients that support it and the BBS clients all seem to be using SSH instead.

    Many years ago when I first saw that I thought to myself, "we'll have secure telnet in time". I haven't thought much about it since.

    It would be good to have a secure telnet since that is still the most
    used protocol for connecting to a BBS.

    I guess my point is that SSH *is* a secure telnet with the extra added option of automatic login and its already supported by the major terminals and PUTTY.

    So I am not sure what role TELNETS really fills in this case.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/02/29 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Sector 7 (21:1/108)
  • From Al@21:4/106.1 to g00r00 on Fri Feb 28 22:23:46 2020
    I guess my point is that SSH *is* a secure telnet with the extra
    added option of automatic login and its already supported by the
    major terminals and PUTTY.

    Yes, SSH has always been secure. In spite of that folks seem to use
    Telnet the most. I'm not sure why that is. I think it's entrenched in the
    way we do things and the way things have always been done.

    It's also true that current clients folks use don't (and probably never
    will) do telnets, so providing telnets may not produce any meaningful
    benefit on the short (or long) term.

    I think secure protocols are a benefit. Whether folks will use it or not
    I don't know.

    Ttyl :-),
    Al

    --- MagickaBBS v0.14alpha (Linux/x86_64)
    * Origin: Equinox BBS - Penticton, BC Canada (21:4/106.1)
  • From g00r00@21:1/108 to Al on Sat Feb 29 15:18:15 2020
    I think secure protocols are a benefit. Whether folks will use it or not
    I don't know.

    Thats one way to look at it. If the effort is minimal, then maybe its worth just putting it out there.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/02/29 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Sector 7 (21:1/108)
  • From Analog@21:2/123 to g00r00 on Sat Feb 29 07:45:30 2020
    I don't think there are any BBS terminals that do TELNETS though, just

    I could add it into NetRunner pretty easily alongside Mystic, I just
    have to think about what the purpose of it would be.

    Also, something to think about is whether BBSes will want to expore a fourth connection option considering SSH should handle encryption fine. I don't know what this will provide that the other options don't. I'm interested in this topic though.

    |20|15┌─|16|08┤ |08De|07ad|15be|07a|08tz b|07b|15s
    |08└─┘├─┐ |08:>.|07A|08rk |0710|08:|07101|08/|0714|08.
    |04■ |08└|20|15─|16|08┘ |08:>.|10A|02gn |1046|08:|101|08/|10123|08.
    |04A|07n|15al|07o|08g |08:>.|12F|04sx |1221|08:|122|08/|12123|08.
    |04.|08dPR|04. |08:>.|15S|07ci |1577|08:|151|08/|15131|08. |04░▒░|08▒██▄▌|08:>.|11T|03qw |111337|08:|113|08/|1113|08.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A45 2020/02/09 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: deadbeatz.org (21:2/123)
  • From buanzo@21:2/161 to g00r00 on Sun Mar 1 09:00:38 2020
    On 29 Feb 2020, g00r00 said the following...
    I could add it into NetRunner pretty easily alongside Mystic, I just
    have to think about what the purpose of it would be.

    That might probably make it the only current multi-platform BBS Terminal to support it!

    Go for it :D

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A45 2020/02/18 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: DaRK Game BBS (21:2/161)