No auth? And it's over telnet so any auth will still be transmitted in plaintext. What next, it will ship with hard coded "admin" "password" for auth?
This is exactly why the version of devops where developers with no sysadmin/server management/etc experience try to manage servers scares the shit out of me.
There are numerous ways to ensure this isn't accessible via an external source. Indeed, even if it did come with username/password authentication, or 2-factor authentication, it still would be an exploit waiting to happen if exposed.
You shouldn't be putting these things out on the open web in the first place.
So "No auth" isn't a bad thing, as there are better tools to ensure authorization is done before ever getting access.
This could be secured with a private network and a firewall. It would be nice if the readme mentioned the security vulnerability this exposes, and maybe a suggestion on how to secure the telnet port. I am sure that someone is going to install this without thinking to secure the telnet port.
I just started playing with this library, and then I had the same realization. I scanned through the readme for any mention of authentication and then put the brakes on.
Great point. I am working on adding an option for requiring a username/password to make this safe for production. It should be pushed in the next couple days.
If you make it listen on 127.0.0.1 only, you'll only be able to connect to it from a shell on the local machine, which will alleviate all of your security issues.
This is exactly why the version of devops where developers with no sysadmin/server management/etc experience try to manage servers scares the shit out of me.