Seeking Network geeks please...

My better half is supposed to download her work from a mail server on port 22.
We have turned off all firewalls, but can't 'telnet' it.
We have asked our ISP, PlusNet, to try it, they can't do it, not even on their own and/or Telewest cable connection, however they reported tat they can telnet on port 25.
Turns out we can also telnet on port 25, but not 22 !

The Swiss company swears the server is working and accesible on port 22.
This has been going on for weeks, my family will be starving very soon...

Can anyone here "telnet 212.243.7.194 22" ?
Better still, why is it not working for us ?
Thanks,
regards,
Martin

Are you 100% sure the port is 22?

22 is normally SSH, 25 is one of a possible few for SMTP.

I've never heard of any one running a SMTP server on port 22.

Edit:... that said, port 22 on that IP is open but appears to do nothing.

:~ mattm$ telnet 212.243.7.194 22
Trying 212.243.7.194...
Connected to mail.cls-communication.com.
Escape character is '^]'.

whereas port 25 is running the mail server..

:~ mattm$ telnet 212.243.7.194 25
Trying 212.243.7.194...
Connected to mail.cls-communication.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 gateway01.cls-communication.com ESMTP Smtpd; Mon, 23 May 2011 23:00:57 +0200

Have you tried to use port 25 instead in your client?

Double Edit: You say download mail from the server? SMTP is normally used to send mail to a server (i.e outbound messages). If you want to download from the server, you'd normally use POP3 (110) or IMAP (143) (or SSL variants of the two 993/995).

Matt

Edited by uno (Mon 23-May-11 22:03:25)

In reply to a post by uno:

Edit:... that said, port 22 on that IP is open but appears to do nothing.

And ports 23 (TELNET). 110 (POP3), 143 (IMAP) are all closed. Port 22 must be awaiting her login.

But it isn't requesting anything...

Just sitting there, so could be SSH that only actively responds to known (trusted) IP addresses.

Mail clients (in and out) work on a challenge/response type transaction. Port 22 isn't presenting a challenge, so nothing can be given as a response.

Matt

It's not port 22 hex (34 decimal) is it?

According to Wiki, that's the port for "Remote File (RF)�used to transfer files between machines".

There's no significant challenge between typing "login:" and typing nothing

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

My better half is supposed to download her work from a mail server on port 22.

Can they not just email it to her in the normal way?

I don't follow.

POP/IMAP/SMTP servers will generally welcome you before you even send anything, to which the transaction would start.

That server isn't welcoming as you would expect for SMTP/POP/IMAP connections which makes me think the port isn't right.

Matt

Sorry, I just meant it could start by just typing a empty string. Once you've logged in once you will always know what to expect subsequently.

In reply to a post by uno:

POP/IMAP/SMTP servers will generally welcome you before you even send anything, to which the transaction would start.

Generally!

In reply to a post by uno:

That server isn't welcoming as you would expect for SMTP/POP/IMAP connections which makes me think the port isn't right.

You're probably right, but it ain't necessarily so!

He probably didn't mean a "mail server" but just downloading work = files.

smtpd is listening on port 25

smtpd is a lightweight mail server which sole purpose is to receive incoming messages and deliver it to local users. Its main "feature" (or non-feature, really) is to be completely unable to relay messages to adjacent servers: if an incoming message is not addressed to a local mailbox, smtpd will reject it.

i know, but I don't see it as Orange, like most ISPs, blocks it. Hence I took uno's reliable word for it.

However, OP wants a downloading server not an uploading one.

Correction, port 80 says it's Lotus Domino.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

smtpd is listening on port 25

smtpd is a lightweight mail server which sole purpose is to receive incoming messages and deliver it to local users. Its main "feature" (or non-feature, really) is to be completely unable to relay messages to adjacent servers: if an incoming message is not addressed to a local mailbox, smtpd will reject it.

Why are you deliberately trying to mislead? Nobody has mentioned a SMTP daemon (SMTPD) in this thread before you, then you go on to try to imply that a SMTP server will not relay mail which is grossly misleading. A full-blown SMTP server is a very different animal to a lightweight SMTP daemon. Your partial quote out-of-context seems almost malicious in intent.

Correction, you are being a Port Anus as usual!

Wrong, I'm trying to help like anyone else is. Anyway as I see it's Lotus Domino I can't add anything further as I don't understand Domino.

If the best you can do is to attack other posters, don't bother.

Wumming and confusion aside, if it's telnet, try port 23. If FTP, port 21.

Something is definitely listening on port 22.

Indeed there is:

==
$ echo -e "hello\n\n" | nc 212.243.7.194 22 | hexdump -C
00000000 8b 05 99 29 73 f8 b9 3b 03 33 28 79 5b ac 96 3d |...)s..;.3(y[..=|
00000010 8f 19 66 1b bb 41 16 8c e4 6a 18 0c f1 93 2b cc |..f..A...j....+.|
00000020 1b b0 30 de 12 70 14 7e c9 23 bc 5a b2 ca b6 bb |..0..p.~.#.Z....|
00000030 67 42 f5 86 25 83 d5 dd f2 d6 2d 74 77 af 03 c9 |gB..%.....-tw...|
00000040
==

As has been said, it's probably Lotus Notes and they've probably set it up on port 22 to make sure people can reach it without being hindered by firewalls or network interception devices - what I mean by that is, for example, a typical O2 3g dongle will actually port capture ALL major ports, except 22 and 443 (SSL related) - one of the main reasons for this is to block minors from accessing inappropriate material online (unless you prove your age and ask for this restriction to be lifted). I know this because I port scanned a dead IP address a while ago while I was using my works dongle, and pretty much EVERY port came back as open, except for a few select ports (22 and 443 being two of them). I would imagine 22 is the cleanest port to stick applications like LN on, as it should be freely accessible for most people to connect to.

Not got much more to add. I guess it's up to the original OP to use some Lotus software to connect and see what happens.

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

My better half is supposed to download her work from a mail server on port 22.
We have turned off all firewalls, but can't 'telnet' it.
...
The Swiss company swears the server is working and accesible on port 22.
...
Can anyone here "telnet 212.243.7.194 22" ?

It is highly unusual to configure a mail server to use port 22, rather that is the assigned port for SSH communication. A SSH server does not respond to an initial connection, but waits dumbly for the client to initiate the handshake - See RFC4256, para. 3 et seq here. That would explain your inability to get any response from port 22 via telnet. More information on SSH can be found here.

Assuming that you are using Windows, a very good SSH client programme is PuTTY which can be found here. Note that the suite also includes both a SCP and a SFTP programme for transferring files using SSH.

If you are able to connect via SSH using your partner's username and password, you will need to be familiar with the command line interface on the remote server in order to achieve anything useful. That will also depend upon the user permissions assigned to your partner's login. In that case, you will need to talk to the company in Switzerland to find out the relevant filenames and folders and exactly what commands to use in order to transfer the files you need.

OP here.

Sorry, I should not have said 'mail server', it's only that
nslookup of 212.243.7.194 says mail.cls-communication.com

but in reality it's file download via Across translation software.
But in order for it to work, telnet on port 22 must be working.

For us the telnet on port 22 will NOT connect at all.
(while port 25 responds as 'gateway01.cls.communication.com')

What we REALLY NEED to know is:
(you may need to turn off your firewall(s))

can you telnet 212.243.7.194 22 ?

Is so please tell me what ISP / connection you are using.
THANKS, regards,
Martin

PS. Yes, they *could* just email the file, but that involves someones time = money, then some again when returning the file,
so at the moment, my better half does NOT get the work !

It's not a mail server. Others have suggested a Lotus Notes server.

john@mercury:~$ telnet 212.243.7.194 22 |od -x -a
0000000    7254    6979    676e    3220    3231    322e    3334    372e
          T   r   y   i   n   g  sp   2   1   2   .   2   4   3   .   7
0000020    312e    3439    2e2e    0a2e    6f43    6e6e    6365    6574
          .   1   9   4   .   .   .  nl   C   o   n   n   e   c   t   e
0000040    2064    6f74    3220    3231    322e    3334    372e    312e
          d  sp   t   o  sp   2   1   2   .   2   4   3   .   7   .   1
0000060    3439    0a2e    7345    6163    6570    6320    6168    6172
          9   4   .  nl   E   s   c   a   p   e  sp   c   h   a   r   a
HELO [email protected]
0000100    7463    7265    6920    2073    5e27    275d    0a2e    058b
          c   t   e   r  sp   i   s  sp   '   ^   ]   '   .  nl  vt enq
0000120    2999    f873    3bb9    3303    7928    ac5b    3d96    198f
         em   )   s   x   9   ; etx   3   (   y   [   , syn   =  si  em
0000140    1b66    41bb    8c16    6ae4    0c18    93f1    cc2b    3280
          f esc   ;   A syn  ff   d   j can  ff   q dc3   +   L nul   2
0000160    65a9    8dd6    cb77    a4cf    ea81    5e4d    cd4f    d22e
          )   e   V  cr   w   K   O   $ soh   j   M   ^   O   M   .   R
Connection closed by foreign host.
0000200    8062    d0c7    2ad7    318a    4124    cc31    7713
          b nul   G   P   W   *  nl   1   $   A   1   L dc3   w
0000216

Refer back to work support, suspect their instructions are not complete and they expect you to use not the translation software but some other software to do the file get.

Using telnet to get a file from a remote machine is very unusual.

Email if its under 5MB-10MB would be simplest, above that FTP is by far the simplest

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

OP here.
...
For us the telnet on port 22 will NOT connect at all.
(while port 25 responds as 'gateway01.cls.communication.com')
...
can you telnet 212.243.7.194 22 ?

Port 22 is assigned to SSH. Why are you insisting upon ignoring that and continuing to try to use Telnet? Your failure to see what is staring you in the face can only ever lead to doom and despair.

Telnet will never work as a SSH client. A SSH server will never respond to a telnet connection. Nobody can test the connection for you because it needs an authorised username in order to get any sort of response from the SSH server and it will not request that or even present a login interface. A SSH connection must be initiated by the client programme. That is how SSH is deliberately designed to work.

SSH might be described as "secure Telnet" since it uses a SSL/TLS transport mechanism to create an encrypted connection, which telnet cannot understand, but which achieves the same end as telnet - a console connection to the remote computer. I've already pointed you towards a Windows client SSH application (PuTTY). I'm sure you can research an alternative for yourself if using a different OS.

The use of telnet possibly arises as telnet to a port and getting a blank screen response rather than immediate return to command prompt, usually indicates the ability to get a TCP connection on that port.

Also worth adding that port assignments while following conventions are not hard coded, and thus it is possible for people to run whatever server they desire on whatever port.

In short, this is at the refer back to the firms IT department

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

The use of telnet possibly arises as telnet to a port and getting a blank screen response rather than immediate return to command prompt, usually indicates the ability to get a TCP connection on that port.

Also worth adding that port assignments while following conventions are not hard coded, and thus it is possible for people to run whatever server they desire on whatever port.

In short, this is at the refer back to the firms IT department

And if the OP won't even try a SSH connection on a port which just happens to be assigned to SSH ..... ?

The telnet connects but nothing meaningfull happens in terms of telnet

For the IP address/port given, telnet elicits a response, ssh does not.

In reply to a post by john2007:

For the IP address/port given, telnet elicits a response, ssh does not.

Ok, guys, I won't bang my head against this particular wall any longer.

For us the telnet on port 22 will NOT connect at all.
(while port 25 responds as 'gateway01.cls.communication.com')

What we REALLY NEED to know is:
(you may need to turn off your firewall(s))

can you telnet 212.243.7.194 22 ?

Is so please tell me what ISP / connection you are using.
THANKS, regards,
Martin

there is a response on port 22, from a bt connection here;
ok it just clears the screen, and if I type anything, a few seconds later get some gibberish, but a connection no doubt.

from a bt dynamic address, 86.144.y.z

In reply to a post by Renfrew:

A SSH server will never respond to a telnet connection.

That's not technically correct..

pob:~ mattm$ telnet xx.xx.net.uk 22
Trying 91.199.xx.xx...
Connected to xx.xx.net.uk.
Escape character is '^]'.
SSH-2.0-OpenSSH_4.3

The SSH responded with the greeting, you just can't do anything with it.

Matt

Ditto.

john@mercury:~$ telnet mercury 22
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to localhost.
Escape character is '^]'.
SSH-2.0-OpenSSH_5.5p1 Debian-6

In reply to a post by Renfrew:

And if the OP won't even try a SSH connection on a port which just happens to be assigned to SSH ..... ?

You are missing the point! The OP was instructed by their Swiss server to 1st test the desired connectivity to the server by checking if TELNET Port 22 works before using the translation software. They are not expected to do the analysis and procurement of further s/ware that you propose.

For all of us, TELNET Port 22 does work to the extent that it shows Port 22 is live; we might even be able to use it had we OP's credentials and s/ware .

All OP wants is for his TELNET Port 22 to connect like ours. As, presumably, the only diff between us is our ISPs, therein must lie the issue. Can any other PLusnet user get the TELNET Port 22 to work?

It connects (Plusnet user), then halts at a blank cursor.

OP here again.

Thanks for all your help.

Just to clear things up:
We are meant to use the Across translation software (german...) to access the server and download file(s) to translate, the IP and port No. is in a setup file sent to us, we can't edit that, and shouldn't have to.
Across (the software) just reports it can't connect on 212.243.7.194 port 22.
The Across support people said to test if we can telnet that IP on port 22.
The response we get is:
"Could NOT OPEN connection to the host on port 22: Connect failed"
However other people get different response, e.g. ggremlin in an earlier post.
WHY ?

Today I have been advised by PlusNet to use
htttp://serversniff.net to do tcp-traceroute.
It works, it says IP [open] in the last step.

So, it would appear that we can REACH the server, but can't make it to respond to our telnet
or Across software.
Apparently other translators can, Across swears that they have tested it with our setup file.
So here we are,
STALEMATE...
no solution, no work !
Regards,
Martin

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

Across (the software) just reports it can't connect on 212.243.7.194 port 22.
The Across support people said to test if we can telnet that IP on port 22.
The response we get is:
"Could NOT OPEN connection to the host on port 22: Connect failed"

Today I have been advised by PlusNet to use
htttp://serversniff.net to do tcp-traceroute.
It works, it says IP [open] in the last step.

So, it would appear that we can REACH the server

No it doesn't, it means you can't reach the server. However serversniff.net can, so the server is up, but it is being blocked by your firewall or Plusnet.

Have you tried a proxy?

http://www.daveproxy.co.uk/

try a vpn i had a same prob and it sorted it out

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

Today I have been advised by PlusNet to use
htttp://serversniff.net to do tcp-traceroute.
It works, it says IP [open] in the last step.

There was no doubt whether the server's IP as a whole was reachable. It was whether its particular port 22 was reachable from you.

Another anon, not the OP, here.

I don't usually trust support people (not front line anyway). I usually trust Wireshark (but I don't claim to understand what it tells me).

Here's what Wireshark says, on Plusnet, when I do the telnet to port 22, wait a few seconds, then close the DOS box. Ignore the missing packets, they're from an unrelated activity and I was too lazy to get Wireshark to filter them. Does it tell anybody anything?


1 0.000000 192.168.0.101 212.243.7.194 TCP argis-te > ssh [SYN] Seq=0 Win=65535 Len=0 MSS=1460
2 0.047031 212.243.7.194 192.168.0.101 TCP ssh > argis-te [SYN, ACK] Seq=0 Ack=1 Win=16384 Len=0 MSS=1400 WS=0WS=1
3 0.047077 192.168.0.101 212.243.7.194 TCP argis-te > ssh [ACK] Seq=1 Ack=1 Win=129940 Len=0
35 10.956560 192.168.0.101 212.243.7.194 TCP argis-te > ssh [FIN, ACK] Seq=1 Ack=1 Win=129940 Len=0
36 11.006143 212.243.7.194 192.168.0.101 TCP ssh > argis-te [ACK] Seq=1 Ack=2 Win=65535 Len=0
37 11.006219 212.243.7.194 192.168.0.101 TCP ssh > argis-te [FIN, ACK] Seq=1 Ack=2 Win=65535 Len=0
38 11.006238 192.168.0.101 212.243.7.194 TCP argis-te > ssh [ACK] Seq=2 Ack=2 Win=129940 Len=0

Original poster here.

I bet you have all been dying to know what happened

I have assumed that when you place a computer in a DMZ, then all ports and protocols are open / allowed, (makes sense to me...).
Alas my BT / 2 Wire 1801HG has a separate page where you can allow listed protocols, which still applies in the DMZ !
I have always had Telnet and FTP open, but it wasn't until I ticked the
"Allow all other protocols" box that I could telnet & connect to the Across server (but not get a reply, it's encrypted).
Ofcourse the agency had problem with that server at the same time, so it didn't get resolved until couple of weeks ago.
Never did find out what protocol is actually used !

Thanks to all who tried to help.
Regards,
Martin