The Day the Telnet Died

2026-02-1022:20499385www.labs.greynoise.io

On January 14, 2026, global telnet traffic observed by GreyNoise sensors fell off a cliff. A 59% sustained reduction, eighteen ASNs going completely silent, five countries vanishing from our data…

On January 14, 2026, global telnet traffic observed by GreyNoise sensors fell off a cliff. A 59% sustained reduction, eighteen ASNs going completely silent, five countries vanishing from our data entirely. Six days later, CVE-2026-24061 dropped. Coincidence is one explanation.

telnet

infrastructrure

CVE-2026-24061

detection engineering

cybersecurity

A long, long time ago
I can still remember how a protocol
used to make me smile
And I knew if I had my chance
That I could make those botnets dance
And maybe they'd be happy for a while

But January made me shiver
With every packet I tried to deliver
Bad news on the backbone
I couldn't scan a single ASN

I can't remember if I cried
When my -f root hit an ACL line
But something touched me deep inside
The day the telnet died

So bye, bye mass spreading Mirai
Drove my SYNs down on the fiber line
But the fiber line was dry
And good old bots were passing creds in the clear and dry
Singin' this'll be the day that I die
This'll be the day that I die

On January 14, 2026, at approximately 21:00 UTC, something changed in the internet’s plumbing. The GreyNoise Global Observation Grid recorded a sudden, sustained collapse in global telnet traffic — not a gradual decline, not scanner attrition, not a data pipeline problem, but a step function. One hour, ~74,000 sessions. The next, ~22,000. By the following hour, we were down to ~11,000 and the floor held.

Six days later, on January 20, the security advisory for CVE-2026-24061 hit oss-security. By January 26, CISA had added it to the KEV catalog.

We wrote about the first 18 hours of exploitation activity back on January 22. This post is about something different: the structural change in global telnet traffic that preceded the CVE, and why we think the two events may not be independent.

From December 1, 2025 through January 14, 2026, GreyNoise observed an average of ~914,000 non-spoofable telnet sessions per day across 51.2 million total sessions — let’s call that the “baseline”.

On January 14 at 21:00 UTC, hourly volume dropped 65% in a single tick. Within two hours it had fallen 83% below baseline. The new average settled around ~373,000 sessions/day — a 59% sustained reduction that persists through the time of writing (February 10).

This wasn’t a taper. The hourly data around the inflection point tells the story:

Jan 14, 19:00 73,900 Normal baseline
Jan 14, 20:00 64,722 Normal baseline
Jan 14, 21:00 22,460 65% drop in one hour
Jan 14, 22:00 11,325 83% below baseline
Jan 14, 23:00 11,147 New floor established
Jan 15, 00:00 12,089 Sustained at reduced level

That kind of step function — propagating within a single hour window — reads as a configuration change on routing infrastructure, not behavioral drift in scanning populations.

Eighteen ASNs with significant pre-drop telnet volume (>50K sessions each) went to absolute zero after January 15. Some of the names that stand out:

  • Vultr (AS20473) — 382K pre-drop sessions, then nothing
  • Cox Communications (AS22773) — 150K sessions, gone
  • Charter/Spectrum (AS20115) — 141K sessions, gone
  • BT/British Telecom (AS2856) — 127K sessions, gone

Five entire countries vanished from GreyNoise telnet data: Zimbabwe, Ukraine, Canada, Poland, and Egypt. Not reduced — zero.

Meanwhile, the major cloud providers were largely unaffected or even increased. AWS went up 78%. Contabo up 90%. DigitalOcean essentially flat at +3%. Cloud providers have extensive private peering at major IXPs that bypasses traditional transit backbone paths. Residential and enterprise ISPs typically don’t.

The pattern points toward one or more North American Tier 1 transit providers implementing port 23 filtering:

The timing — 21:00 UTC, which is 16:00 EST — is consistent with a US-based maintenance window. US residential ISPs (Cox, Charter, Comcast at -74%) were devastated while cloud providers on the same continent peered around whatever changed. Verizon/UUNET (AS701) dropped 79%, and as a major Tier 1 backbone, that’s consistent with it either being the filtering entity or sitting directly upstream of one. The 21% residual traffic on AS701 would represent paths that don’t transit the filtered links.

Countries that rely on transatlantic or transpacific backbone routes to reach US-hosted infrastructure got hit hardest. Countries with strong direct European peering (France at +18%, Germany at -1%) were essentially unaffected.

The Chinese backbone providers (China Telecom and China Unicom) both dropped ~59%, uniformly. That uniformity suggests the filter sits on the US side of transpacific links rather than within China. If this were a Chinese firewall action, we’d expect asymmetric impact across Chinese carriers and a harder cutoff.

CVE-2026-24061 is a critical (CVSS 9.8) authentication bypass in GNU Inetutils telnetd. The flaw is an argument injection in how telnetd handles the USER environment variable during telnet option negotiation. An attacker sends -f root as the username value, and login(1) obediently skips authentication, handing over a root shell. No credentials required. No user interaction. The vulnerable code was introduced in a 2015 commit and sat undiscovered for nearly 11 years.

The timeline:

Jan 14, 21:00 UTC Telnet backbone drop begins
Jan 20 CVE-2026-24061 advisory posted to oss-security
Jan 21 NVD entry published; GreyNoise tag deployed; first exploitation observed
Jan 22 GreyNoise Grimoire post on initial 18 hours of exploitation
Jan 26 CISA adds CVE-2026-24061 to KEV catalog

The six-day gap between the telnet drop and the public CVE disclosure is the interesting part. On its face, the drop can’t have been caused by the CVE disclosure, because the drop happened first. But “caused by” isn’t the only relationship worth considering.

Responsible disclosure timelines don’t start at publication. The researcher who found this (credited as Kyu Neushwaistein / Carlos Cortes Alvarez) reported the flaw on January 19, per public sources. But the coordination that leads to patches being ready, advisories being drafted, and CISA being prepared to add something to the KEV within six days of publication typically starts earlier than the day before disclosure.

Here’s what we think may have happened: advance notification of a trivially exploitable, unauthenticated root-access vulnerability affecting telnet daemons reached parties with the ability to act on it at the infrastructure level. A backbone or transit provider — possibly responding to a coordinated request, possibly acting on their own assessment — implemented port 23 filtering on transit links. The filtering went live on January 14. The public disclosure followed on January 20.

This would explain:

  • The timing gap (advance notification → infrastructure response → public disclosure)
  • The specificity of the filtering (port 23/TCP, not a general routing change)
  • The topology of impact (transit-dependent paths affected, direct-peering paths not)
  • The sustained nature (the filter is still in place weeks later)

We can’t prove this. The backbone drop could be entirely coincidental — ISPs have been slowly moving toward filtering legacy insecure protocols for years (ref: Wannacry), and January 14 could simply have been when someone’s change control ticket finally got executed. Correlation, temporal proximity, and a plausible mechanism absolutely do not equal causation.

But the combination of a Tier 1 backbone implementing what appears to be port 23 filtering, followed six days later by the disclosure of a trivially exploitable root-access telnet vulnerability, followed four days after that by a CISA KEV listing, is worth documenting and considering.

The telnet landscape after January 14 shows a recurring sawtooth pattern — periodic spikes followed by troughs (e.g., January 28 at 806K sessions, then January 30 at 191K). This could indicate intermittent filter application, routing flaps around the filtering infrastructure, or scanner campaigns that happen to use paths not affected by the filter.

The weekly averages tell the sustained story:

Dec 01 1,086,744 119%
Jan 05 985,699 108%
Jan 19 363,184 40%
Jan 26 407,182 45%
Feb 02 322,606 35%

We’re now operating at roughly a third of the pre-drop baseline, and the trend is still slightly downward.

If you’re running GNU Inetutils telnetd anywhere — and given the 11-year window, there are plenty of embedded systems, network appliances, and legacy Linux installations where it’s still likely present — patch to version 2.7-2 or later, or disable the service entirely. The CISA KEV remediation deadline for federal agencies is February 16, 2026. As noted, GreyNoise observed exploitation attempts within hours of disclosure and the campaign peaked at ~2,600 sessions/day in early February before tapering off.

If you’re a network operator and you haven’t already filtered port 23 at your border, the backbone-level filtering we’ve documented here suggests the industry is moving in that direction regardless. Someone upstream of a significant chunk of the internet’s transit infrastructure apparently decided telnet traffic isn’t worth carrying anymore. That’s probably the right call.

If you know anything about this (or was the brave soul who implemented it), drop us a line at research@greynoise.io.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By virgulino 2026-02-113:547 reply

    Never mind telnetd. Tier 1 transit providers doing port filtering is EXTREMELY alarming. They have partitioned the Internet, and in a way that automatic routing (BGP) can't get around.

    • By NitpickLawyer 2026-02-116:596 reply

      > Tier 1 transit providers doing port filtering is EXTREMELY alarming.

      I was admining a small ISP when blaster and its variants hit. Port filtering 139 and the rest was the easiest way to deal with it, and almost over night most of the ISPs blocked it, and we were better for it. There was a time when if you'd put a fresh XP install on the Internet you'd get 5-10 minutes until it would get restarted.

      I guess if you're really an admin that needs telnet, you can move it to another port and go around it? Surely you'd tunnel that "old box that needs to stay alive" if that's the usecase? Is there anyone seriously running default telnet on 23 and is really affected by this filtering?

      • By VadimPR 2026-02-1111:412 reply

        Lots of text games - MUDs - still play over telnet using dedicated MUD clients that implement their own telnet stack. Outright blocking the port has an outsized side efffe on them, this is simply not right.

        • By mikkupikku 2026-02-1117:211 reply

          Hosted roguelikes have been using ssh for at least 15 years. It's probably time for MUD folks to consider this.

        • By RupertSalt 2026-02-1111:484 reply

          If MUDs and other games were indeed using port 23/tcp for player access, they were not only incorrect but rather dangerous.

          Since 23/tcp is a well-known IANA-registered port for the Telnet service, it is an RFC violation to use it for a service that is not telnetd/remote logins via TELNET protocol.

          Any port below 1024 signifies that it is a "privileged port". This is an archaic distinction that developed in high-trust R&E networks, but it did signify that the listener on the port had administrative/root access to spawn a service there, so it was kind of a signal that you could "trust" the remote server with your login credentials.

          The privileged ports were also priority, because if the unprivileged ones were "first come, first served" for unprivileged users, the administrator would have the ability to enforce the uniqueness of "privileged ports", and disable or kill any process that shouldn't be using one. A MUD Wizard who finds their port in-use (bound) on start is on their own.

          Typically there were no MUDs running with, or needing, root privileges. They were run under user accounts, or specific unprivileged role accounts. They had no need of a privileged port, and many were clandestine or unauthorized, and forced to use a higher port number. That's why the 4-digit ports became so popular.

          Anyway, the custom has already developed of blocking port 23 to protect users from unwittingly opening a management or login interface. Most shrewd admins would choose a port that isn't routinely blocked and filtered... and port-scanned.

          If your favorite MUD runs on port 23 today, such as nethack or something, then I am glad for this change, which will force the administrator to select a unique port that does not imply privilege, TELNET protocol, or shell login credentials. It is totally RFC-compliant to select an unassigned port above 1023, and MUD conventions have popularized several numbers that are still recognizable to players today.

          • By Kim_Bruning 2026-02-1112:281 reply

            They're remote terminal applications? Remote interactive text sessions. Over TELetype NETworking?

            You're saying that connecting my tty (emulator), to a remote host is not the purpose of telnet?

            <backs away slowly>

            Though ... I suppose by now a switch to port 22 could make sense.

            • By RupertSalt 2026-02-1112:497 reply

              No. MUDs should never have adopted port 23 or port 22 or any pre-assigned ports. There is no "well-known port assignment" from IANA for MUD-type games or servers.

              The end of RFC854, the very last paragraph, states:

              https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc854

                 Port Assignment
              
                    When used for remote user access to service hosts (i.e., remote
                    terminal access) this protocol is assigned server port 23
                    (27 octal).  That is L=23.
              
              I would say that by the letter of the law, and by longstanding convention, that port 23/tcp is given to telnetd type login servers. A server listening on port 23 is expected to accept login credentials and furnish a shell or some management interface that affects the host itself. That someone would log in as a terminal user and perform computing tasks.

              A MUD game could never be confused with managing the server where it runs, or a user/admin login to access that operating system. A MUD game has a specific purpose of recreation/leisure/communication.

              Again, let us not conflate port 23 with telnetd with the TELNET protocol. These are all completely separate and distinct. Except that port 23/tcp implies TELNET protocol and also implies a telnetd-type server. It is sort of a one-way chain of requirement. telnetd could be run on any port (inadvisable) while TELNET protocol could be implemented by any other service (often preferable).

              A MUD server is perfectly entitled to use TELNET protocol! In my server-hacking days, I often considered it a mistake and error not to support TELNET protocol! If I had known how to implement it, I would've added it to TinyMUCK myself! Honestly, it was not a priority because there was no known client supporting TELNET, either. Of course, protocol support needs to be on both ends to be effective. Without demand or capability from clients, it didn't really make sense for server programmers to add it in.

              But we were perfectly content to stay on port 2283, port 4201, or port 6250, as our players and Wizards had established the games to run there, especially in those days we wished to escape notice by admins. The TELNET protocol can run on any port and support any "network virtual terminal" service. But the "telnet port" on 23 is special, unique, and as of last month, really inadvisable for everyone.

              • By FEELmyAGI 2026-02-1119:241 reply

                > A MUD game could never be confused with managing the server where it runs

                What do you think of [], highlights: It is extremely tightly integrated with the system. Connections are handled by telnetd, and the interface is basically considered a shell by the system. MUD characters are treated as actual users by the system, with a UNIX username consisting of "m-" followed by the first 5 characters of their selected character name. The database is stored as directories and files, with occasional symlinks.

                Any programming or scripting language which is capable of manipulating Mooix's data files can be used to write custom commands, in a similar idea to, say, CGI. Libraries have been created to aid in this for several languages, including Perl, C, Ruby, and bash.

                When a character is enabled as a programmer, they basically get the amount of power normally associated with a shell account. They can create and execute files, evaluate perl scripts, and can access a simplified version of a standard UNIX shell, among other benefits. Facilities are provided to edit Mooix scripts or programs (using your favorite editor) from within the MUD, then set them up to be executed when a user types a certain command.

                []https://everything2.com/title/Mooix

                • By RupertSalt 2026-02-1121:31

                  Well that's unique!

                  It is a horse of a different color when user logins are handled by telnetd itself. I would imagine that access could also be provided by ssh. I know of no MUD that supports MFA, public/private keys, and host certificates!

                  At any rate, as of January 2026, Mooix users are gonna have a tough time connecting on port 23/tcp. I won't say they've been wrong for using it until now, but they may find themselves forced to switch to ssh, or at least a 4-digit port number. And patch that GNU telnetd ASAP, man.

                  EDIT: Sad to say, please do not visit the website cited in this linked article. It is, how you say, squatted by purveyors of smut. It may be the case that Mooix is abandonware.

              • By kps 2026-02-1114:511 reply

                > by longstanding convention, that port 23/tcp is given to telnetd type login servers

                First thing I ever telnetted to was Melvyl, University of California's library catalogue, around 1985. This was “remote user access” (I was a remote user) to “service hosts” (running the catalogue) providing “remote terminal access”. It was not a login.

                • By RupertSalt 2026-02-1115:04

                  I remember using MELVYL too, and you're completely right about that.

                  I would suggest that MELVYL on port 23/tcp was also unnecessarily impinging on the IETF standards. MELVYL could have easily established its own well-known port with the IANA and not conflicted with the TELNET login port.

                  Before the WWW, there were a multiplicity of search services and indexes. Remember Archie, WAIS, and Gopher? Apparently, WAIS was assigned port 210/tcp, but Archie apparently used TELNET on 23/tcp as well.

                  I think some of the pioneering Internet services were perceived as not requiring a dedicated port. If MELVYL was the only service running on the mainframe and it wasn't running a Unix telnetd, then why not usurp 23/tcp? The admins there probably perceived it as a virtual "octopus cable" connecting remote "terminal labs", and for sure they had alternate methods of access for OS servicing and configuration purposes. In the beginning of MELVYL they were undecided about which protocol would prevail, and TCP/IP was competing with others, so port numbers may have been afterthoughts for the architects.

                  The most important thing may have been the principle of not surprising users or confusing them with parameters. "telnetting to a host" was way easier without trying to specify that they needed a port number. Just ask any Unix admin where MUD users try to bang on their telnetd port trying to play the game...

              • By simlevesque 2026-02-1113:35

                I don't understand how playing a MUD doesn't fit the definition of "remote user access to service hosts".

              • By da_chicken 2026-02-1113:141 reply

                Boy, wait until I tell you what happened with http!

              • By metroholografix 2026-02-1119:55

                The vast majority of MUDs don't even implement the full TELNET protocol, just a small subset. In typical MUD fashion, fundamental TELNET parts like option negotiation were either hacked together -badly- or altogether ignored.

                For the longest time in the 90s TELNET AYT would crash tons of custom implementations.

              • By Kim_Bruning 2026-02-1114:391 reply

                You mean something like this?

                     mudplayer:x:1001:1001:MUD Player:/home/mudplayer:/usr/games/adventure

                • By RupertSalt 2026-02-1114:503 reply

                  [flagged]

                  • By zenethian 2026-02-1115:311 reply

                    Their replies are only obtuse because you fail to see that you’re being made fun of for having such a ridiculous pedantic position about this. “Terminal” does not mean shell when you read the Telnet RFC. It means TTY. A human to machine interface. MUDs implement the Telnet protocol and provide a remote TTY. What’s running on the terminal is absolutely irrelevant.

                    • By RupertSalt 2026-02-1115:371 reply

                      [flagged]

                      • By zenethian 2026-02-1115:421 reply

                        Can you show the exact line in the RFC or IANA port reservations that says it has to implement a shell login interface with the Telnet protocol if it’s on port 23? Because I can’t find it. Nothing says that anywhere.

                        • By RupertSalt 2026-02-1116:051 reply

                          I literally already did. And it is not merely the RFC which specifies it. The RFC defines the protocol and really leaves it open-ended for any sort of implementation.

                          What defines port 23/tcp is the longstanding usage and the original understanding of a "remote terminal" or NVT. In 1983 when the IETF described the NVT, it was simply understood that a terminal, or "canonical console", was a method to access a timesharing system and log in as a user. If you went to a "terminal lab" or you sat down at a desk with a "terminal" or "teletype" or any of its predecessors, you were preparing to log in and do some programming or data processing.

                          There were literally no terminal labs where you would sit down and begin playing Centipede, Asteroids, or PONG. Those were completely different concepts of "consoles" and "cabinets" and the IETF did not stutter when they defined an NVT.

                          Every Unix implementation, every router and network device, practically anything with an Internet connection implemented a "shell" login on port 23 or it did not. There were plenty of systems with /usr/games and a plethora of leisure-time activities, but surprisingly they did not default to using port 23/tcp. It has been long-standing tradition, and convention, that the TELNETD service operating on 23/tcp is what a user expects to find when they connect.

                          MUD admins and wizards who put their servers on 23/tcp necessarily needed another way to log in and manage their server. I am surprised that they were so easily able to usurp telnetd if this was the status quo. Was sshd already established for them or something? Did they just resort to rlogin instead? I'm genuinely clueless and curious how it was so easy to usurp 23/tcp and use it for MUDs.

                          Because my community often ran them clandestinely, and we always ran them unprivileged, so there would literally be no way for the server to start on port <1024 -- it never ever had root access! If your MUD ran on port 23, that's dangerous because at some point, somewhere, some time, it enjoyed root access, and hopefully dropped that UID 0 immediately after the bind()!

                          • By ylow 2026-02-1117:301 reply

                            Just for you I will switch my FTP server to run on Port 23.

                            • By RupertSalt 2026-02-1117:39

                              Data or Control channel?

                              TCP or UDP or SCTP?

                              The world's your oyster, man

                  • By Kim_Bruning 2026-02-1115:37

                    > Your MUD wizards made a bad, bad choice long ago when they picked port 23.

                    I'm confused. I refer you to my previous answer. Which does not specify a port, nor does it need to.

                    :x: can be a PAM database?

                    It's ... how I'd do it. You get a lot for free.

              • By antonvs 2026-02-128:51

                > I would say that by the letter of the law, and by longstanding convention,

                Those are two different things, and you're confusing or conflating them.

                "By the letter of the law", certainly if we're just talking about RFC 854, there's no mention of shells, or some of the other constraints you're projecting onto it.

                "Remote user access to service hosts (i.e., remote terminal access)" is perfectly consistent with someone accessing a MUD.

                When it comes to convention, though, which is influenced by pragmatic issues such as security constraints, you have more of a case.

          • By unethical_ban 2026-02-1115:59

            Yes, and sftp and scp should not operate on port 22 because that isn't proper, interactive SSH!

          • By sophacles 2026-02-1116:43

            > it is an RFC violation

            I hate to break it to you, but RFC violations power the internet.

            Also, RFCs are non-binding and the IANA port numbers are just strongly suggested.

          • By ordu 2026-02-1115:231 reply

            > Any port below 1024 signifies that it is a "privileged port". This is an archaic distinction that developed in high-trust R&E networks, but it did signify that the listener on the port had administrative/root access to spawn a service there, so it was kind of a signal that you could "trust" the remote server with your login credentials.

            If something is running on a privileged port is not enough to trust it. Firstly you need to trust to a host, you need to know where are you connecting to. If you connect to a random host with a privileged port and pass it your credentials you are doing stupid things.

            This thing with privileged ports is protecting you from users who could run arbitrary code on a server. From them and not from anyone else. So for MUD there is a lot of reasons to run on 23 port, it is a signal for users of MUD that they are connecting to a process hat was started by the owner of the machine having the root.

            > If your favorite MUD runs on port 23 today, such as nethack or something, then I am glad for this change, which will force the administrator to select a unique port that does not imply privilege, TELNET protocol, or shell login credentials. It is totally RFC-compliant to select an unassigned port above 1023, and MUD conventions have popularized several numbers that are still recognizable to players today.

            If I was running a MUD, I would find some way to get around. I could use 22 for example, though it could cause me problems with logging in with ssh. But it is not an issue really, there are 1k privileged ports, I could choose one from them.

      • By RulerOf 2026-02-117:162 reply

        The GP's concern isn't a practical one, it's ultimately about net neutrality. It's not the ISP's job to discriminate against traffic—it's their job to deliver it.

        This may seem like a good idea, and frankly is likely a net-positive thing, but it is literally the definition of "ISP decides what apps its customers can and cannot use."

        I share the concern and don't really like it either.

        • By tosti 2026-02-118:481 reply

          It's not a net-neutrality issue because they're not banking on any alternative.

          Net-neutrality law doesn't work like that. Service providers still get to filter stuff.

          What's illegal for an ISP is e.g. to give VoIP services other than their own a lower priority. That would tie in customers to use their own service and they could even charge more for it. Net neutrality means a level playing field for services on the Internet.

          If you ask your ISP to do filtering, that's perfectly legal. If they filter specific traffic for the purpose of maintaining service, that's okay too.

          Now if there was no alternative and they'd try to sell their product by blocking telnet, they could be sued.

          • By ncruces 2026-02-119:502 reply

            This is not an ISP. It's a Tier 1 transit provider.

            • By sophacles 2026-02-1116:48

              My ISP (AT&T) is a tier 1 transit provider.

            • By tosti 2026-02-1110:37

              The more unlikely they would violate net neutrality unless they would be tied in to CDNs and accept a bribe to favour one service over another.

              Possible but unlikely.

        • By PunchyHamster 2026-02-1113:40

          There is some merit to the end user ISPs doing that - for example one I used before filtered SMTP traffic (and iirc some other) to the client unless you opted out from it.

          Which was mildly annoying workaround for the power users (disabling it was just changing the ppp login), but stopped a lot of accidentally open open relays and a lot of other cruft

      • By Suzuran 2026-02-1115:261 reply

        I run a PDP-10 during the colder parts of the year. It's for historical preservation reasons. There are others doing the same thing. We still offer telnet access because that's how it worked back then. I guess we aren't going to be doing that anymore.

        • By varenc 2026-02-1116:291 reply

          If you can get it on IPv6, maybe via a gateway, port 23 filtering doesn't seem to be applied to IPv6 yet! (I assume because the v6 address space is too large to mass scan?)

          • By Suzuran 2026-02-1118:191 reply

            If I am rewriting the network stack or making other substantial changes, that defeats the purpose of historical preservation.

            • By RupertSalt 2026-02-1118:541 reply

              If moving it to another port from the OS is beyond the pale for you, your router should implement PAT (port translation) or forwarding, so that from the outside, users could connect on, say, 443 or 2323, and the router rewrites the segments to connect to your immutable port 23/tcp.

              It makes no sense that IPv6 is treated differently than IPv4. If GNU telnetd is vulnerable and it's running on port 23/tcp, it will be found on IPv6. I would definitely not bind anything to listen on port 23 on any protocol, because I would expect it to become filtered shortly. Port 23 is permanently burned everywhere.

              Conversely, a vintage PDP-10 telnetd is not affected by the CVE for GNU.

              It is a classic rookie mistake to treat the two protocols differently, so if Tier-1 providers have done this, they must be overly optimistic, or foolish, or met with some technical obstacles, or perhaps OSI Layer 8?

              • By Suzuran 2026-02-1119:08

                I meant rewriting it for IPv6 instead of IPv4.

      • By miki123211 2026-02-119:352 reply

        Changes like these lend even more credibility to the approach of putting everything on port 443 over TLS, and distinguishing protocols based on hostname / HTTP path.

        • By tosti 2026-02-1110:40

          Wireguard over 443/udp is also a neat trick. No need to make it look like quic although I wouldn't be surprised if someone takes the effort to make it that stealthy.

        • By trashb 2026-02-1113:183 reply

          If everything was on port 443 why would we even need ports.

          The ports are there for a reason, it is idiotic to serve everything over http as you would need a mechanism to distinguish the different flows of traffic anyhow.

          • By allknowingfrog 2026-02-1114:341 reply

            Preventing the traffic from being distinguished is the whole premise. Port 23 gets blocked because everyone uses it for telnet, and everyone expects bad actors to know that. If everything moves to 433, we'll end up with a variety of routing systems and no focal point for attack. The only alternative is to disallow port filtering in core internet infrastructure.

            We can either have a standard and accept that bad actors will use it against us, or we can accept the chaos that results from abandoning it.

            • By trashb 2026-02-1316:25

              > The only alternative is to disallow port filtering in core internet infrastructure

              I think this is an acceptable alternative. In the same way that your mail service is legally required to deliver your mail as part of their universal service obligation (without reading it).

          • By Sohcahtoa82 2026-02-1122:441 reply

            You've got it wrong. It doesn't have to be HTTP[S] traffic.

            Reverse proxies can disambiguate based on the SNI. I could run telnetd on port 23, but have port 23 firewalled off, and have my reverse proxy listening on port 443 with TLS forward anything going to telnet.mydomain.com to telnetd. Obviously, my client would need to support that, but a client-side proxy could easily handle that just as well.

            • By trashb 2026-02-1316:141 reply

              Yes you can run any service on any port. But tunneling telnet over another protocol seems like you would just move the problem. I don't know too much about SNI but if "Reverse proxies can disambiguate based on the SNI" wouldn't your network service provider also be able to filter based on SNI?

              You would need to agree on a protocol and you would gain all the advantages but also the disadvantages of the tunneling protocol.

              • By Sohcahtoa82 2026-02-1317:23

                > wouldn't your network service provider also be able to filter based on SNI?

                Two things:

                1. Only if they knew that the hostname in question is indeed being used for telnet tunneling. You can set that host name to whatever you want.

                2. Encrypted SNI is a thing.

                > You would need to agree on a protocol and you would gain all the advantages but also the disadvantages of the tunneling protocol.

                Yeah, admittedly the entire thing is a bit contrived. If your client is capable of speaking the tunneling protocol, then likely you'd just use the tunneling protocol itself, rather than using it to tunnel telnet.

          • By da_chicken 2026-02-120:521 reply

            Yeah, that already exists.

            Protocol multiplexing/demultiplexing is a feature of software like sslh, nginx, and HAProxy exist, and they don't need to listen on multiple ports to speak multiple protocols or connect multiple services. Many advanced reverse proxies can do this with stream sniffing of some flavor.

            People already do actually run everything through port 443 simultaneously.

            • By trashb 2026-02-1316:051 reply

              Protocol multiplexing exists. But you will have to agree on a single protocol, which I view as impossible since different applications have different requirements.

              If you route all your traffic through https that comes with all the upsides, for example the security layer (ssl). But also the downsides of for example overhead of headers. Currently we have an overarching (network layer) protocol, it is called IP. It divides the traffic into different ports at the host, these ports speak different protocols. If you move the multiplexing higher up the OSI stack, you are violating the principles of separation and making your stack less flexible, you are mixing OSI layers 4: transport up to 6: Presentation. Conflicting these layers can lead to big problems as this includes things like the Transport layer, for example the difference between udp/tcp is included there.

              The beauty of the network stack is that there are certain layers that separate responsibility. This allows the stack to apply to wildly different scenarios. However I do agree that there should be no filtering applied on behalf of the customers.

              • By Sohcahtoa82 2026-02-1317:32

                > Protocol multiplexing exists. But you will have to agree on a single protocol

                I may be misunderstanding your message here, but the requirement to agree on a single protocol isn't true when you're using multiplexing. I think you're confusing tunneling with multiplexing.

                With multiplexing, you have multiple protocols listening on a single port. The multiplexer server sniffs the first few bytes of what the client sends to determine what protocol is being used, then decides which back-end to forward the connection to.

                Neither the client nor the final back-end need to be aware that multiplexing is happening, and likely aren't.

                Through this, you can use both HTTPS and Telnet on port 443 without the Telnet client needing to have any changes done.

      • By Sohcahtoa82 2026-02-1122:37

        > There was a time when if you'd put a fresh XP install on the Internet you'd get 5-10 minutes until it would get restarted.

        This is still true, though 5-10 minutes is slightly pessimistic. Source: https://youtu.be/6uSVVCmOH5w

        TL;DW - Guy installs XP and makes it internet accessible, only takes 15 minutes before the first malware appears on it.

    • By oaiey 2026-02-116:494 reply

      I do not know what is more critical: the risk of censorship or stand by while hospitals, banking, nuclear power plants and other systems become compromised and go down with people dying because of it. These decision makers not only have powers but also have a responsibility

      • By citrin_ru 2026-02-118:112 reply

        Have you ever seen a hospital, a bank, a power plan to expose telnetd to the public internet in the last 20 years? It should be extremely rare and should be addressed by company’s IT not by ISPs.

        • By sznio 2026-02-118:52

          These are the institutions I would most expect to do that.

          Well, maybe not a bank.

        • By _ink_ 2026-02-118:27

          Probably Tier 1 providers have some insight on this.

      • By gspr 2026-02-117:003 reply

        This feels more akin to discovering an alarming weakness in the concrete used to build those hospitals, banks and nuclear power plants – and society responding by grounding all flights to make sure people can't get to, and thus overstress, the floors of those hospitals, banks and nuclear power plants.

        • By zh3 2026-02-1110:43

          In the UK we have in fact discovered an alarming weakness in the concrete used to build schools, hospitals and other public building (in one case, the roof of a primary school collapsed without warning). The response was basically "Everybody out now".

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_reinforced...

          https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/raac-crisis...

          https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/aug/31/what-is-ra...

        • By forty 2026-02-117:261 reply

          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?

          • By gspr 2026-02-117:532 reply

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

            • By da_chicken 2026-02-118:12

              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.

            • By forty 2026-02-118:522 reply

              There again, I think the comparison fails.

              Fixing the hospital: single place to work on, easier

              Blocking all the roads/flights: everywhere, harder

              Vs

              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

              • By dizhn 2026-02-1111:12

                I run telnetd on 2323 because I don't want hackers to find it.

              • By gspr 2026-02-1112:37

                The hospital-plural-s: many places.

                Roads: a lot more places than that.

                The core of the analogy holds.

        • By PunchyHamster 2026-02-1113:46

          nah, that's like seeing an open gate to nuclear tank - a thing easily fixed within few minutes - and responding to it by removing every road in existence that can bear cars

      • By 7bit 2026-02-117:221 reply

        Censorship is one of these words that get slapped on anything.

        Filtering one port is not censorship. Not even close.

        • By trashb 2026-02-1113:251 reply

          > censorship, the suppression or removal of writing, artistic work, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security

          It is not the responsibility of the Tier 1 or the ISP to configure your server securely, it is their responsibility to deliver the message. Therefore it is an overreach to block it because you might be insecure. What is next. They block the traffic to your website because you run PHP?

          Similar to how the mailman is obligated to deliver your letter at address 13 even though he personally might be very superstitious and believe by delivering the mail to that address bad things will happen.

          • By 7bit 2026-02-1310:39

            I don't agree with your argument, but I don't want to debate that.

            But let's say I agree: That still is not censorship.

      • By nedt 2026-02-129:07

        If that really affects them it's better to take them offline.

    • By ericpauley 2026-02-1120:471 reply

      This simply isn't happening, and we have the data to prove it: https://www.terracenetworks.com/blog/2026-02-11-telnet-routi...

    • By pjc50 2026-02-119:201 reply

      Port 23 has been filtered by most providers for decades.

      This is why everything converges on using TLS over 443 or a high port number. I don't see this as a huge deal, and especially not one deserving all caps rants about censorship. Save those for things like FOSTA/SESTA.

      • By gzread 2026-02-119:59

        Not by tier 1 transit providers. You pay those to deliver your packets, no matter what.

    • By acters 2026-02-114:14

      So basically the same as censorship because that is the exact same thing blocking ports does.

    • By fragmede 2026-02-115:47

      not to mention, filtering on udp vs tcp, which makes using anything else impossible. Not that I have one, but it's just a bit in a field, why filter on it?

    • By worksformeintx 2026-02-1113:571 reply

      I can connect with the GNU telnet client via the Spectrum ISP to servers in both Seattle and the Netherlands.

      • By RupertSalt 2026-02-1118:581 reply

        It doesn’t matter what client you use.

        Is it on port 23/tcp, and what are the ASNs?

        The report specifically says that cloud networks like VPS, AWS seemed exempt.

        • By worksformeintx 2026-02-120:54

          Yes, port 23/tcp

          From ASN AS11427 (Charter Communications Inc) to ASN AS12859 (BIT BV) and to ASN AS14361 (HopOne Internet Corporation)

          (edit: formatting)

  • By Quarrel 2026-02-112:005 reply

    What an amazing bug. I probably spent my first 10 years on the internet just using telnet. They were wild times. You could log ethernet traffic and see passwords. Towards the end of those we started to have a few more single-user machines, but the vast majority were old school many many user machines, where "root" was thought to be tightly restricted (of course, even then, in practice it wasn't if you were in the know).

    Anyway, just wild seeing this:

    > telnet -l 'root -f' server.test

    or

    > USER='-f root' telnet -a server.test

    Survive 11 years.

    • By anitil 2026-02-112:11

      The more I work in software, the more amazed I am that anything works at all. There's likely so much low hanging fruit out there

    • By Telemakhos 2026-02-113:01

      I never sent root over telnet, but I spent too much vacation time browsing the web via lynx on my school AIX account from a library near my parents' home, because it had a telnet client in addition to the card catalogue program on the otherwise locked down desktop. It was just a more innocent time: you didn't assume your traffic was being logged six ways to Sunday. With telnet access to my AIX account, I could do all the internet things, like mail (pine) and the web (lynx) and irc, from a convenient command line anywhere in the world.

    • By qingcharles 2026-02-1110:322 reply

      When did we all stop using telnet? I can't even remember. Most of my first 10-15 years was using telnet. One day I used telnet to connect to a shell for the last time and didn't know it. I had a ton of servers all with root telnet access Internet facing. Never hacked once, somehow. Those were the days.

      • By roryirvine 2026-02-1116:341 reply

        In the Linux / BSD world, SSH took off incredibly fast for the time. I'd estimate that maybe 80% of people had moved to it within the first year of its release.

        But adoption stalled when the original SSH moved to a commercial license in 1996-ish - many of us stuck with the last free version, but vulnerabilities started to pile up. There were various half-working alternatives, but it wasn't until OpenSSH came out in 1999 that the remaining telnet holdouts started to move across.

        • By icedchai 2026-02-1117:20

          It was 1996 for me. I forget where the original SSH (SSH1 protocol) came from, but I do remember compiling it on a Slackware box around that time.

      • By RupertSalt 2026-02-1112:221 reply

        I worked for an ISP in the mid-90s and had been on the Internet since 1989 or so. I recall the progression for me was something like this:

        We used telnet in college no problem. It was a fairly well-accepted method of remote access. The heterogeneous network had many different modes, but a major dialup point was the Annex box, which supported telnet into the Unix or VMS machines.

        Between Unix machines, we would often prefer "rlogin" instead. There were several horrific iterations of other remote-access protocols such as "remsh". rlogin was notorious for its "/etc/hosts.equiv" authorization method which trusted DNS and should've been perceived as Swiss Cheese from the outset. rlogin was, IIRC, directly related to rsh and rcp and used the same frameworks. rlogin was no more secure than telnet, but probably less secure because of its conveniences.

        We also used port 23/tcp for remote management, for example Cisco routers. They weren't running telnetd, but it was the port where you connected remotely and logged in with or without credentials.

        rlogin persisted alongside telnet, until encryption came into fashion and ssh was distributed. Once ssh was available and working well, everyone knew that telnetd and rlogind were on borrowed time. The services were shut down and disabled in inetd. The ports were sometimes blocked. Security advisories went out.

        I suppose it took a long, long time for ssh to finally dominate, and for people to abandon telnetd mostly, but it was fairly thorough. We all recognized the superiority of sshd's authentication and encrypted channels.

        There were mitigations for people to extend their legacy use of telnetd and rlogind. For example, tcp wrappers and fail2ban could be implemented. Firewall filters could select only authorized networks. VPNs could tunnel through an Intranet that still used them. So, the services lived on wherever they didn't need to be exposed on the public Internet. But I think most Unix admins got the picture by the end of the dot-com bubble.

        • By Quarrel 2026-02-1113:111 reply

          > /etc/hosts.equiv

          Ah, the memories.

          cat '+ +' >> /etc/hosts.equiv

          • By RupertSalt 2026-02-1113:46

            Ah, I have no memory of such a command, so I must be getting old!

    • By mlyle 2026-02-116:16

      It's hilarious, especially given that I have memories of similar rlogin vulnerabilities -- various unixes being vulnerable to rlogin -l '-froot' in the 90s.

    • By wellf 2026-02-119:081 reply

      Never used telnet to log in to something but it is a cool debugging tool, so used it for that. E.g. can this container even send traffic to that container at all.

      • By itintheory 2026-02-1115:02

        I'm a fan of 'nc' / netcat for this purpose. It's small, quick, and can send or receive over TCP or UDP.

  • By AnonHP 2026-02-112:263 reply

    So Telnet as a client is not dead though, right? A long time ago, I used to use the Telnet client to talk to SMTP servers (on port 25) and send spoofed emails to friends for fun.

    With port blocking widening in scope, I’ve long believed that we would one day have every service and protocol listening on port 443. Since all other ports are being knocked off in the name of security, we’ll end up having one port that makes port based filtering useless.

    • By mmh0000 2026-02-112:302 reply

      netcat, socat and openssl s_client are all available for general manual connection testing.

      As are many other tools. But the ones above are basically far better direct telnet alternatives.

      • By EE84M3i 2026-02-113:565 reply

        I've never really understood why it's a thing to use a telnet client for transmitting text on a socket for purposes other than telnet. My understanding is that telnet is a proper protocol with escape sequences/etc, and even that HTTP/SMTP/etc require things like \r\n for line breaks. Are these protocols just... close enough that it's not a problem in practice for text data?

        • By degamad 2026-02-115:302 reply

          Because for a long time, on most computers, the telnet client was the closest thing to an "open a tcp socket to this ip/port and connect the i/o from it to stdin/stdout" application you can get without installing something or coding it up yourself.

          These days we have netcat/socat and others, but they're not reliably installed, while telnet used to be generally available because telnetting to another machine was more common.

          These days, the answer would be to use a netcat variant. In the past, telnet was the best we could be confident would be there.

          • By prmoustache 2026-02-117:452 reply

            You don't even need netcat or socat for that, probing /dev/tcp/<host>/<port> from the shell is enough.

            • By hibbelig 2026-02-118:15

              Telnet was available in the 90s. I reckon /dev/tcp is way more recent. GP did say a long time ago.

            • By geocar 2026-02-118:54

              That's some gnu bash shenanigans. There is no /dev/tcp in unix

              Lots of shops didn't have gnu installed: telnet was what we had.

          • By SoftTalker 2026-02-1117:47

            In corporate environments, netcat was often banned as it was seen as a "hacking" tool. Having it installed would sometimes get the attention of the security folks, depending how tightly they controlled things.

        • By indymike 2026-02-117:29

          Same reason that people use vi. It's always there.

        • By linuxftw 2026-02-1110:35

          In the days of yore, Windows had telnet installed. Most hackers used telnet in the 90's and early 2000's.

        • By teddyh 2026-02-1114:17

          The telnet protocol with escapes, etc. is only used by the telnet client if you’re connecting to the telnet port. If you’re connecting to HTTP, SMTP or something else, the telnet protocol is not enabled.

        • By swinglock 2026-02-115:032 reply

          Because it's there.

          • By prmoustache 2026-02-117:451 reply

            It hasn't for the most part of the last 2 decades.

            • By 1718627440 2026-02-118:584 reply

              The telnet client comes with MS Windows, Linux and macOS. The only platforms were you need to install some extra component are Android and iOS.

              • By JasonADrury 2026-02-148:461 reply

                Are you sure? I can't seem to find the Linux implementation anywhere in the repo https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Atorvalds%2Flinux%20telnet...

                • By 1718627440 2026-02-1416:09

                  You are absolutely right: s|Linux|GNU/Linux|

              • By prmoustache 2026-02-1112:191 reply

                Many companies have been preventing its execution or removing the package by default for a number of years.

                Also most linux containers do not ships with such binaries to save on img size and reduce vuln management overhead.

                • By 1718627440 2026-02-1113:081 reply

                  > to save on img size

                      $ ls --human --size --dereference $(which telnet)
                      144K /usr/bin/telnet

                  • By prmoustache 2026-02-1113:21

                    The point is not that this particular binary is huge, the point is that we tend to strip images of anything that is not useful for the actual application shipped. So we strip everything. Also: small things adds up. On AI prompt can be handled reasonably by a single machine, millions of concurrent ones involve huge datacenters and whole energy plants being restarted/built.

                    The point of reducing the amount of binaries shipped with the image is also to reduce the amount of CVEs/vulns in your reports that wouldn't be relevant for your app but woulld still be raised by their presence.

              • By alphager 2026-02-1115:08

                Telnet client is an optional feature in Windows that needs to be enabled/installed.

              • By einr 2026-02-1116:531 reply

                telnet hasn’t shipped with macOS since 10.12 Sierra, ten years ago.

                Debian also isn’t shipping telnet in the base install since Debian 11.

                • By 1718627440 2026-02-1121:18

                  Thanks, sounds like a recent development. I don't use macOS, but on other peoples macOS computer it was always there, even when they are not developers. But it could very well be that these computers are ten years old.

                  I mean technically MS Windows 10 is ten years old, but the big upgrade wave to 10 only happened like 4 years ago, which is quite recently. Maybe that is similar to macOS users, I don't know that.

      • By acters 2026-02-114:202 reply

        If it's alright to be pedantic, anyone with programming knowledge can do the same without these tools. What these offer is tried and tested secure code for client side needs, clear options and you don't need to hand roll code for.

        • By 1718627440 2026-02-119:21

          You can program without tools? I want to see that. Do you still have switches to alter RAM content, or do you use the butterfly method?

        • By fragmede 2026-02-115:48

          who's hand rolling code anymore these days though?

    • By dudefeliciano 2026-02-1111:09

      I don’t remember how I did it but when I was about 12 years old I somehow managed to send SMS from Telnet to cell phones, and to the receiver they appeared to be sent by an official Telecom account - good that I was still an innocent child, had I discovered this a few years later I may have tried doing something nefarious with it.

    • By ajross 2026-02-112:292 reply

      None of this affects the use of telnet the client program nor the ability to run a telnetd on your own host (but do be sure it's patched!).

      What's happened is that global routing on the internet (or big chunks of it, it's not really clear) has started blocking telnet's default port to protect presumably-unpatched/unpatchable dinosaur systems from automated attack. So you can no longer (probably) rely on getting to a SMTP server to deliver that spoofed email unless you can do it from its own local environment.

      • By emmelaich 2026-02-112:441 reply

        > started blocking telnet's default port

        But that's 23 and smtp is 25.

        • By jonprobably 2026-02-113:541 reply

          SMTP has and is almost blocked everywhere to dissuade spam.

          • By dwedge 2026-02-1110:081 reply

            Presumably not on the SMTP servers they were connecting to. There are millions of IPs with port 25 open, without them email wouldn't work, so I'm not sure what you mean

            • By einr 2026-02-1116:58

              They probably mean that port 25 is blocked on consumer ISPs/residential IP blocks to prevent malware from running an smtpd on an infected home computer or router (which used to happen a lot), but on a higher level of course no one blocks SMTP.

      • By pkaeding 2026-02-112:331 reply

        You would still be able to use the telnet client to connect to an SMTP server on TCP port 25, just not port 23, right? I don't think that part changed here.

        • By ajross 2026-02-112:351 reply

          It's... not super clear from the article whether this is a port block or a stateful protocol thing. But yes, you're probably right and SMTP spoofing is probably safe for now.

          • By Balinares 2026-02-1112:42

            I read it as a clear port 23 block.

HackerNews