Re: Telnetd Vulnerability Report
Eddie Chapman <[email protected]> Wed, 25 Feb 2026 00:34:29 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.security.oss.general,gmane.comp.gnu.inetutils.bugs |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 25/02/2026 00:22, Justin Swartz wrote: > On 2026-02-25 01:18, Eddie Chapman wrote: >> On 24/02/2026 20:33, Solar Designer wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 05:05:58AM -0500, [email protected] wrote: >>>> Who uses telnet anyway? It's deprecated. Everyone uses ssh for any >>>> kind of remote access. >>> >>> Indeed. Yet: >>> >>> Quite many people surely do still use a telnet client to access various >>> older/smaller devices >> >> Yes. I would hazard a guess that the largest cohort of devices running >> a telnet server are enterprise switches, gateways & routers. So many >> times over the years I've been surprised to find a switch I'm >> configuring has a telnet as well as the obligatory http(s) server >> available for the admin to login via. >> >> Albeit to a lesser extent these days, and more likely BusyBox telnetd >> than InetUtils. But switches are one of the most likely pieces of kit >> to be forgotten about and left running for 10+ years in a closet >> without a firmware update. There are a LOT of old switches running out >> there. > > There're also serial port concentrators, programmable automation > controllers, remote telemetry units, protocol gateways, data > aggregators, and PXI/LXI instrumentation out there that run some of > telnet daemon - and you can be sure that it's not always busybox's > telnetd implementation. Well, every cloud has a silver lining ... for some of these devices, this vulnerability, together with other ones, just might make it possible for owners to completely replace that cesspit of a firmware with an OSS one that can be updated :-) (if they have lots of time and patience!)