Ok, I've got a telnetS server at shsbbs.net, port 992. You just have to
accept the certificate. I'm wondering what it would take to create a TelnetS client? Would you just need to use stunnel in client mode to the destination server, or would you set 0.0.0.0 as the destination with port 23? Would that work for all external TelnetS servers? I'm trying to encourage users to use more secure protocols... I still can't do anything about ftp, other than
using https urls with the web download protocol. The only problem with that
is the limit of 5GB I've enforced since the files are being copied first.

--
Shurato, Sysop Shurato's Heavenly Sphere (ssh, telnet, pop3, ftp,nntp,
,wss, ssh utf-8) (22,23,110,21,119,999,2222) shsbbs.net FREQ FILES !


*** THE READER V4.50 [freeware]
---
* Origin: Shurato's Heavenly Sphere telnet://shsbbs.net (21:2/148)

On 10 Sep 2026, Shurato said the following...

Ok, I've got a telnetS server at shsbbs.net, port 992. You just have to accept the certificate. I'm wondering what it would take to create a TelnetS client? Would you just need to use stunnel in client mode to
the destination server, or would you set 0.0.0.0 as the destination with port 23? Would that work for all external TelnetS servers? I'm trying
to encourage users to use more secure protocols... I still can't do anything about ftp, other than using https urls with the web download protocol. The only problem with that is the limit of 5GB I've enforced since the files are being copied first.

ZOC and SyncTERM both support TelnetS

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (21:1/616)

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)