Board:   [fsxNet] BBS Software Development/Support
Subject: RE: TelnetS...
From:    dingo(21:1/121)
Date:    Wed Sep 16, 2026 08:20

TelnetS is "easy" to use, since it is just a wrapper around an existing protocol (stunnel), the problem is most BBS's are not compatible with a modern terminal and bsd or gnu telnet clients, they can't handle screens other than 80x24, require propriatary non-VT100 codes that appear only in synchronet systems, etc.

Anyway, I implemented telnets in my "modern terminal client" that tries to bridge all of this awfulness, https://github.com/jquast/telix

And I'll say this: it's not secure. Examine how SSH works and you'll see the difference. One example is that BBS's require you to "key in" your password, so simple timing analysis can do a pretty good job of figuring out your password nevermind what it is you're typing. SSH artificially delays by randomization your input to work around it.

MUDs are doing a good job of implementing websockets, its complicated because the telnet negotiation avaialble over telnet is an additional layer, and some people are chosing to use JSON with "Subprotocols" instead of just "do telnet over websockets", long standard there, https://mudstandards.org/websocket/

But again, its probably not very secure for the same reason. Anyway, if you're concerned about security, you shouldn't be running synchronet or mystic or a BBS :)

--- ENiGMA 1/2 v0.5.1-beta (linux; x64; 22.22.2)
 * Origin: Xibalba -+- xibalba.vip:44510 (21:1/121)
.