Not to get off on a rant but I'm worried that one day, ISP's will restrict Telnet entirely. Eventually no ISP will give any understanding to some weird running a "bulletin board system" on port 23. It will be lumped into that security-risk catagory along with Cisco routers, IP cameras, IOT etc.
I agree, especially in Canada. I believe it to be inevitable.
Free Speech for Everyone?
I run on a port that is not 23 because I get tired of script kiddles spamming my bbs.
I run on a port that is not 23 because I get tired of script kiddles spamming my bbs.
Me as well. I think its best to use an non standard port, anyway. Just
to keep the children at bay :)
It doesn't matter. The script kiddies, as you call them, are just other servers pinging for open ports. They'll find you no matter which port
you move it to.
It doesn't matter. The script kiddies, as you call them, are just other servers pinging for open ports. They'll find you no matter which port
you move it to.
Except they're not looking for BBSe
s, most of those port scanners are
looking for vulnerable services. It
takes time to scan 65355 ports, so
it's much quicker to only scan the
ones you know the vulnerable servic
es
you are looking for are running on.
Yes, I still get port scans on port
2323, I get a LOT less than on por
t
23.
I got almost none when using port 1
1892.
Andrew
That said, I'm sure the more your BBS host & port are out there on the internet and the more popular it becomes, the more bots that will find
it and start trying stuff.
Except they're not looking for BBSes, most of those port scanners are
looking for vulnerable services. It takes time to scan 65355 ports, so
it's much quicker to only scan the ones you know the vulnerable services
you are looking for are running on.
Yes, I still get port scans on port 2323, I get a LOT less than on port
23.
I got almost none when using port 11892.
You'll get a lot fewer *users* too. <shrug>
You'll get a lot fewer *users* too. <shrug>
Why? If people are savvy enough to connect to a BBS using telnet, surely they can change the port number in their client?
You'll get a lot fewer *users* too. <shrug>
Why? If people are savvy enough to connect to a BBS using telnet, surely they can change the port number in their client?
It's another thing to know about and do correctly, another barrier to
entry. Some users are savvy/capable, can figure things out on their
own, many are not. That's my experience anyway.
I've had my board on port 23 for 25+ years with no problems. On an XP
box.
while you could be fiddling around with a bbs
I think it more becomes a problem when you're running on something like a commodore 64 or something. I don't know, I don't have a problem either.
Oh, that didn't occur to me. I'm kind of used to "SBBS" sometimes (very rarely now) referring to SuperBBS, but I'd never seen Searchlight
referred to as "SBBS". If that's the case, my bad. :-)
It doesn't matter. The script kiddies, as you call them, are just other servers pinging for open ports. They'll find you no matter which port
you move it to.
It also helps having a 'required keypress' to not initiate an auto disconnect. I've seen ESC*2 on some boards, mine is ENTER. Most bots
that hit my board get booted by that alone.
Oh, that didn't occur to me. I'm kind of used to "SBBS" sometimes (very rarely now) referring to SuperBBS, but I'd never seen Searchlight referred to as "SBBS". If that's the case, my bad. :-)
Yeah, I ran a Searchlight board for several years and it was always referred to as SBBS. In fact I think the default file directory for the BBS files was named SBBS.
Re: Re: FidoNet; Ken Kaplan - and t
By: Alonzo to Digital Man on Sun Dec 15 2024 08:03 pm
Oh, that didn't occur to me. I'm kind of used to "SBBS" sometimes (very rarely now) referring to SuperBBS, but I'd never seen Searchlight referred to as "SBBS". If that's the case, my bad. :-)
Yeah, I ran a Searchlight board for several years and it was always referred to as SBBS. In fact I think the default file directory for the BBS files was named SBBS.
Oh, interesting. I'd heard/seen SLBBS in reference to Searchlight, but not SBBS. e.g. https://slbbs.org/
Alonzo wrote to Digital Man <=-
Yeah, I ran a Searchlight board for several years and it was always referred to as SBBS. In fact I think the default file directory for the BBS files was named SBBS.
Yeah, I ran a Searchlight board for several years and it was always
referred to as SBBS. In fact I think the default file directory for the BBS
files was named SBBS.
Anyone remember the story of the breakdown and how it became 'open
source' or at least used by other FTNs???
Oh, that didn't occur to me. I'm kind of used to "SBBS" sometimes rarely now) referring to SuperBBS, but I'd never seen Searchlight referred to as "SBBS". If that's the case, my bad. :-)
Hey hey, the default directory structure for SL is SLBBS, I'm one of the few SLBBS's running today, been online since 1988 infact :-)
Oh, that didn't occur to me. I'm kind of used to "SBBS" sometimes rarely now) referring to SuperBBS, but I'd never seen Searchlight referred to as "SBBS". If that's the case, my bad. :-)
You know what, guys? I may be wrong. It was a long time ago and
my brain doesn't work as well as it used to. Maybe Searchlight
BBS was know as SLBBS and not SBBS. I am sorry if I confused anyone.
What is the name of your board? Most likely, I used to call
it back in the day. Mine was called The Lost City.
Hiya Alonzo,
It's called The Trashcan BBS, located in Christchurch, New Zealand.
Nick.
What is the name of your board? Most likely, I used to callIt's called The Trashcan BBS, located in Christchurch, New Zealand.
| Sysop: | smooth0401 |
|---|---|
| Location: | New Providence, NJ |
| Users: | 6 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 98:53:48 |
| Calls: | 319 |
| Files: | 566 |
| D/L today: |
11 files (11,973K bytes) |
| Messages: | 52,368 |