Re: Telnet vs PcAnywhere

[Chris Travers <chris () travelamericas com>]

Igor D. Spivak wrote:

> 1)Neither telnet nor PC Anywhere fall under the definition of a VPN <---
> virtual private network

True

> 2)Telnet should not be used to grant access from the UNTRUSTED to the
> TRUSTED network (internet to lan for example). Telnet sends all information
> in clear text. PC Anywhere is more secure, as it allows for encryption, but
> its not recommended.

Actually, a correction is due here--

*Be default* telnet sends all information in clear text.  However the 
MIT Kerberos telnet package contains a telnetd which allows you to 
encrypt the entire session and use single-signon.

> 3)telnet should be replaced by SSH ALWAYS <--- there is no reason to use
> TELNET, unless managing an older device, that supports telnet exclusively --
Can someone provide some information on what the real difference is 
between kerberized SSH and kerberized Telnet is for secure environments? 
Assuming Telent is set to only allow encrypted connections via 
Kerberos.  (Granted this is not common usage, but I am curious).  You 
can read the info files on Kerberos or the specifications as you like.

Unfortunately the telnetd packaged with Microsoft SFU does not support 
encrypted sessions, and I am not aware of any servers for Windows that do.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers