Mud compat
DeadSouls is now running under fluffos v2019 with minimal changes!
Checkout https://github.com/fluffos/dead-souls
1 Like
Pretty cool to have websocket support. Will that mean it can have transport encryption soon?
1 Like
I am adding SSH support soon.
But with http now you can already wrap an layer of https on top of websocket using NGINX.
1 Like
SSH support sounds good, but i think it will be better if TELNETS is implemented before this.
Currently many MUDs already have a telnet over SSL implemented and i think most of the MUD clients also have support for this type of connection (at least KBTin which i use have this).
I think such implementation will be better than SSH at the moment as this is currently working and implemented in many cases. I really want SSH support but this means that all MUD clients will need to be rewritten in order to support it which may take time.
With TELNETS we will have encrypted connection without any users having to change their client until SSH support is widely spread and all the MUD clients rewritten.
If TELNETS is simply an TLS wrapped telnet, it is already possible to do using things like stunnel.
However that probably broke remote IP detection. I’ve been putting off integration of TLS functions (the necessary code is all there, just need to turn it on.), but it looks like we may ends up doing it sooner than later.
The problem with stunnel is that you are loosing the possibility to get the client IP address which is needed and useful in certain situations.
The TELNETS is an extension of the current TELNET protocol which adds a support for encrypting the connection via TLS. For what i can see the TELNETS support is now available in Debian and CentOS if you install the telnet server/client packages (the telnet encrypt option). I believe that this is now implemented in most of the current Linux distros.
I had a quick look on the libtelnet which is currently in use in FluffOS, but unfortunately it does not support the encrypt extension so no TLS connection is possible.
I still think that this is the easiest and better way to add connection encryption to a MUD. I know the SSH is better option but as i mentioned it earlier - all MUD clients will need to be rewritten to support it.
Are you talking about http://cpffreight.com/ipk.cgi/zh/00/https/tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2946 or just an generic wrapper of TLS tunnel over the normal TELNET connections? Because these are two very different implementations. I looked at tintin++ and mudlet, they seems to both support TLS tunnel , and that’s why libtelnet is irrelevant here.
Yes. I am talking exactly about this RFC.
Which client do you know supports this extension? This extension also have no mention of exact implementation details, like key exchange or algorithm used. IMO it is very inferior to TLS.
My bad. Apparently this should not be used. I do not know why i have mistaken it.
The client i use is KBtin (https://github.com/kilobyte/kbtin).