Talk:Telnet/Archive 1

Archive 1

History

Was telnet developed in 1980?

No. Telnet is mentioned in RFC 15, which was published in 1969. Editing the page...

History of Computer Science

1969: A good year for computer science::

ARPAnet is established among computers at UCLA, SRI, Santa Barbara and Utah (MIT would join in 1970). Telnet, a remote log-in protocol, is the only available service.

--Sena 20:56, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cambié la oración "que su uso ahora se desaprueba" "algunos expertos desaprueba su uso en algunas circunstancias" (1ros párrafos). Porque: * no es desaprobado por toda la gente. * no es desaprobado por el IETF en detalle. * no se desaprueba para todas las aplicaciones. Utilizo el telnet para conectar entre mi máquina de escritorio y el servidor en el cuarto y mí siguientes imagíneme siempre voluntad, allí no son ninguna preocupación de la seguridad al usar en esa manera. Sí, usar el telnet a través del Internet público o vía untrusted los anfitriones o encendido untrusted redes no es probablemente sensible. Pero eso no es lo que dijo el autor. ahora que SSH y OpenSSH están tan extensamente disponibles, los utilizaría incluso a través de una red privada. Para uno, el demonio del ssh ha tenido mucho menos desbordamientos del almacenador intermediario que los varios demonios del telnet. Para otro, evita de tener que mecanografiar adentro contraseñas cada vez que usted hace un remote login. Para otro, usar el telnet le consigue en malos hábitos. Más seriamente, consigo nervioso teniendo mi flotación sin garantía alrededor de las redes, privadas las uniformes. Seriamente, no puedo pensar en * * circunstancias donde telnet viraría siempre 80 hacia el lado de babor otra vez. El cliente del telnet todavía tiene un futuro como manera ra'pido-n-sucia de hablar con otros tipos de servidor, pero el demonio del telnet es totalmente muerto por lo que me refiero -- [[:Robert Merkel|Roberto Merkel ] ] sí, entiendo que usted lo desaprueba. Era justo precisando que no cada uno lo desaprueba, ni es obsoleto (o aún anticuado). No tengo ninguna preocupación por usar en nuestra red interna porque creo que si un sombrero negro puede tener el acceso físico a nuestra red entonces nos condenan de todos modos. -- [[:drj|drj ] ]. Oh, algunas fuentes sólidas para los "expertos adentro [ [ seguridad de:computer|la seguridad de la computadora ] ] recomienda que el uso del telnet para las conexiones alejadas se debe continuar bajo oración de todas las circunstancias normales "sería agradable. No dudo que es verdad, pero una fuente sería agradable. -- [[:drj|el drj ] ]:Since "yo, y yo hizo un curso del graduado-nivel en seguridad de la computadora" no cuenta probablemente, cavé encima de algunas referencias específicas que recomendaban que telnet para no ser utilizado. -- [[:Robert Merkel|Roberto Merkel ] ] TA. -- [[:drj|drj ] ]

The above is a discussion of the text about TELNET being a regarded as a security problem (thank you, Babelfish!) RossPatterson 17:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

External links, delete putty

I can't get putty to do telnet. It wants to do some kind of encryption. Doesn't support non encrypted mode. I suggest deleting it. Daniel.Cardenas 19:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've got putty running a non-encrypted telnet session right now, as I'm typing this. Ehheh 19:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I was running f-secure instead. Daniel.Cardenas 19:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Animated image is too big

On a machine of mine, with limited memory, the animated image nearly caused it to crash. I suggest linking to it, not including it. --NealMcB 01:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The image is 176K, so that must be a very limited memory machine. You may want to try browsing with images disabled. --Unixguy 17:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Windows Telnet Client

I believe the Microsoft telnet client and server should be included in the list of clients and servers, as for most users these are likely to be the most commonly used ones. --Wierdy1024 20:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Tone of introduction

The introduction to the article does not maintain a sufficiently formal tone. Splendour 07:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

External links

There seems to be a lot of them. Are there any that are particularly valuable per the guideline? - brenneman ^{L} 12:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect advice on TELNET vs. SSH

TELNET has one big advantage over SSH: SSH can be used as a tunneling protocol. Therefore on an enterprise firewall it is always a security risk to allow an SSH session, while a TELNET session is only insecure because of missing encryption.

Removed this from the page, since it's wrong. You can tunnel over any protocol you want; SSH just makes it easier. There is really no reason why you would want to block SSH and not TELNET. If someone wants to provide a good source, feel free to restore it to the article, with sources.— λ 20:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Joke Email

I reverted the entry for 'joke emails' because it's not descriptive enough; and even though I understand what the user was trying to say, it's not something specific enough to telnet to be worth noting. Entbark (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

xcklnxcvklbnxcvbklnxcvkl_{Italic textdgcfhggn}

Last sentence of security section seems out of place

The sentence "Hence telnet is a very essential part and structure in the world of networking and computers." seems out of place, given the context. --Sydius (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The only place round here that it is used is on a physically-secure network that connects to some old hardware that is too crufty (without major outlay to scummy vendors) to support ssh. (I'm even aware that there are variants of ssh that use PKI-based security for auth purposes, though I've not used them.) Donal Fellows (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't intend to disagree with the intent of the statement, as I believe telnet is still useful for things that SSH isn't really appropriate for (such as MUDs or other programs that don't give you the 'shell' in SSH). I just think the sentence is a bit odd where it is in the page, and might be reworded. --Sydius (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Lost user

This is my first visit here - and I am feeling a bit lost!

My apologies in advance if I am not following the proper protocol or making some other mistakes.

My problem -

I have been using W98SE for years and have just very recently acquired a second computer (P4 2600) and have had it set up by a pro for dual boot [Ubuntu Linux and W98SE]. I am now, slowly, learning how to use Firefox (replacing Netscape 4.79) and find it to be more to my liking in some ways but not in everything.

I have been using telnet for over fifteen years as my primary e-mail and newsgroup software, but for the past seven or eight year, also subscribing to the graphics service that is available at a higher cost.

What I like, and want to continue to use telnet for, is that it download NOTHING to my computer - treating it only a a dumb terminal - unless and until I decide that it is of sufficient interest to add to my home computer files. (And I use a FTP program for the downloading.)

My question is, I hope, simple. Can I make a telnet link to my e-mail service using Firefox, and if so, how do I do it.

The details on what I have to work with (sorry if this is getting a bit too long).

I have Marcel Gagne's well written book "Moving to Ubuntu Linux" and the ubuntu Verssion 6.06 LT DVD that came with the book.

Due to a misunderstanding, the installed version that I am working with is ubuntu 6.10 Desktop - and I have noted a few differences between the contents of that CD and the programs on my computer.

Any help will be very much appreciated, and please remember that I am very new at ubuntu and old enough that my capacity for new detail is not what it was sixty or so years ago. :-)

Ben Fullerton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.203.108 (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You would get a better response from the Ubuntu Forums. --Sydius (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

See also "Should article title be all caps?" above. In more recent RFCs (the majority), it seems to be Telnet, not TELNET, and it is not an acronym, so shouldn't be in all-caps anyway. See the previous discussion for more information. --Sydius (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support move, Telnet is the current common name, I've never actually seen it in all-caps (except in an all-caps context). +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support just as Internet is not spelled INTERNET. --Voidvector (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Should article title be all caps?

The title "Telnet" is incorrect, it should be "TELNET". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.38.68.61 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 30 June 2005.

Yup. Fixed. RossPatterson 17:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is it all caps? It's not an acronym. —Chowbok 20:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to change it back. Entbark (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

TCP/IP Protocol Suite, by Forouzan, says that it comes from TErminaL NETwork, not telephone network.

Various sources (but not RFCs themselves) suggest that it stands for TELetype NETwork. sendmoreinfo (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In the more recent RFCs etc. dealing with Telnet, it is capitalized as "Telnet". Yes, earlier RFCs use the all-caps "TELNET" — but, in my experience, current usage is either initial-cap or lower-case. Telnet isn't an acronym, (normally the rationale for all-caps), but rather a portmanteau (normally capitalized as any normal word would be). —Cedgin 06:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we should use the more recent, lower-case version. --Sydius (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

First cite some sources that do it that way. It wouldn't hurt to document the change in the article. Dicklyon (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of the RFCs at the bottom of the article spell it that way (Telnet/telnet), so it's sorta' already cited. I'm not sure the discussion of whether or not it should be in caps is noteworthy enough to include as part of the article itself, though. --Sydius (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Potential Plagerism?

I just noticed that the introduction to the article, particularly the fourth paragraph, is taken from telnet.org [1]. A rewrite is in order? --TreyGeek (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That's assuming they didn't take it from Wikipedia. Maybe we should see if the paragraph appeared all at once in its current form or if it has evolved to the way it is over time. --Sydius (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering that they direct you to Wikipedia to 'learn more' in the same sentence, I would guess that Sydius is right. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

telnet(terminal emulation network) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.189.231.78 (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Telnet and Windows

I think a section about the Windows Telnet client should be included, describing which Windows versions have the client, what changes were made (if any), etc. I think someone brought it up before as well. I don't have much knowledge on the subject and am therefore leaving it to someone who knows more. --Ynhockey ^(Talk) 02:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph does not make sense

"It is commonly believed that a Telnet session which does not use the IAC (character 255) is functionally identical. This is not the case however due to special Network Virtual Terminal (NVT) rules such as the requirement for a bare carriage return character (CR, ASCII 13) to be followed by a NULL (ASCII 0) character."

The above paragraph makes no sense, since the use of ascii chars 13 and 0 does not imply the need for ascii char 255, so I removed the paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.152.183 (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph does not state what you are suggesting. It only points out that there are other rules (such as the <CR><NUL> requirement) that differentiate raw TCP and Telnet protocol than the special use of IAC. I have rephrased the paragraph to make it clearer. Kbrose (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

First Paragraph is Unclear

The introduction which normally serves to be a quick, concise summary of what the subject, is too long, too wordy and WAY too technical; I don't know what Telnet is and after a brief scan of the introduction, I still haven't a clue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChildOfLore (talk • contribs) 12:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

telnet applications on public computers

though this may not be a appropriate forum i am curious as to the absence of telnet applications on public computers? whether there is a explicit (formulated) policy against them? it seems to be universal amongst libraries but i don't know why this is the case. -sio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.224.28 (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Uses of Telnet?

Could someone please add a section on what Telnet is intent. I'd really like to know what Telnet is, as defined by what kinds of tasks it can help accomplish. ~GMH talk to me 01:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I for sure have SSH and Telnet applications on the computer I am using. I want to know what Telnet and SSH are in terms of practical applications. There is no way that the practical applications of these ideas are too technical. Fine it has technical aspects, but explain what I can do with them. I was just looking for programs to transfer files between two computers, and if wikipedia has entry that helps clear up some knowledge deficiencies that I have it would help greatly use of telnet stands for their commands —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.68.246.59 (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

OMG TEH HAZ0RZ!!!11

Isn't telnet a common hacking tool now-a-days? I know there a lot of hacking techniques that require it.

Royaljared 13:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is in the same sense that a keyboard is a "common hacking tool"--telnet is such a basic network tool that anyone who does anything slightly complicated with computer networking needs it, whether they're "hacking" or not. There's nothing particularly malicious about it.—Chowbok ☠ 17:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Telnet towel.blinkenlights.nl

try it 67.1.81.69 (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I know this is Grave-digging this post but maybe we want to consider adding a few interesting (but also useful Telnet Ip's such as the one above into the article to show what telnet is used for these days.) ^**note!** I am happy to add/do this myself but wanted to ask if this would be relevant! Thanks Jthekid15 (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Citations

I'm perfectly comfortable with the RFC's at the bottom of the article. Telnet was defined by RFC's and revised through RFC's. I think the two warning should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gggustafson (talk • contribs) 21:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)