You feel it's similar because having access to port 23 is similarly life critical as having access to an hospital? Or is it because like with ports, when people can't flight to an hospital, they have 65000 other alternative options?

▲

gspr 13 hours ago | parent [-]

All I'm saying is that the only right place to fix this is at the hospital. Not at the roads leading to it.

▲

da_chicken 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's my question. Why is there infrastructure that has open access to port 23 on the Internet. That shouldn't be a problem that the service provider has to solve, but it should absolutely be illegal for whomever is in charge of managing the service or providing equipment to the people managing the service. That is like selling a car without seatbelts.

We are beyond the point where not putting infrastructure equipment behind a firewall should result in a fine. It's beyond the point that this is negligence.

▲

forty 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There again, I think the comparison fails.

Fixing the hospital: single place to work on, easier

Blocking all the roads/flights: everywhere, harder

Fixing all the telnet: everywhere, harder/impossible

Blocking port 23 on an infra provider: single place, easier

It makes sense to me to favor the realistic solution that actually works vs the unrealistic one which is guaranteed not fix the issue, especially when it's much easier to implement

	▲	dizhn 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I run telnetd on 2323 because I don't want hackers to find it.
	▲	gspr 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The hospital-plural-s: many places. Roads: a lot more places than that. The core of the analogy holds.