 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/09/2011 09:39 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 12.09.2011 22:17, schrieb Orchid XP v8:
>
>> I'm not aware of any Unix system which *defaults* to letting remote
>> users access the entire filesystem if they know the root password.
>> Probably because it's a stunningly bad idea, unless the local network is
>> trusted. But anyway...
>
> To the contrary: Unix doesn't only let users who know the root password
> access the /filesystem/, but do /anything/ they like on the machine.
Well, yeah, if I'm on a default Windows box and I've got network access
to a second default Windows box, I can log in to it interactively, I can
access the entire filesystem, the entire registry, read the event log,
run device manager on it, and a whole heap of other stuff. Without
having to configure *anything*.
> That's why you normally keep root passwords a secret ;-)
Windows installations at home generally don't do this. (I blame MS, not
the user.)
>> While we're on the subject, by default you can log in to any remote
>> Windows PC that you happen to know the administrator password to. No
>> special software required. Again, try getting X11 to let you do that.
>> Good luck.
>
> Depends on the server's configuration regarding X11. But you do know
> that X11 is not the only way to log on to a Unix machine, don't you?
Sure. But no other protocols are configured by default either. And with
good reason: not turning stuff on by default is more secure.
>> Doesn't have to be Skype. Various IM clients have this function too. The
>> problem, generally, is the inexplicably slow transfer speeds.
>
> Not inexplicabe if you're on an ADSL line. Hint: The "A" is for
> "asymmetric" ;-)
I know how fast my upload speed is. And it isn't this slow. :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:17:02 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I'm not aware of any Unix system which *defaults* to letting remote
> users access the entire filesystem if they know the root password.
> Probably because it's a stunningly bad idea, unless the local network is
> trusted. But anyway...
Every unix system can do this with something like sshfs installed - on
the client side only - and sshd running on the server.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 12.09.2011 22:55, schrieb Orchid XP v8:
>>> Doesn't have to be Skype. Various IM clients have this function too. The
>>> problem, generally, is the inexplicably slow transfer speeds.
>>
>> Not inexplicabe if you're on an ADSL line. Hint: The "A" is for
>> "asymmetric" ;-)
>
> I know how fast my upload speed is. And it isn't this slow. :-P
Don't forget that with Skype you typically have a voice stream to be
transmitted at the same time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/09/2011 10:36 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 12.09.2011 22:55, schrieb Orchid XP v8:
>
>>>> Doesn't have to be Skype. Various IM clients have this function too.
>>>> The
>>>> problem, generally, is the inexplicably slow transfer speeds.
>>>
>>> Not inexplicabe if you're on an ADSL line. Hint: The "A" is for
>>> "asymmetric" ;-)
>>
>> I know how fast my upload speed is. And it isn't this slow. :-P
>
> Don't forget that with Skype you typically have a voice stream to be
> transmitted at the same time.
I've never used Skype. But I've used various IM clients. And my point
is, they all tend to be inexplicably slow to transfer files.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/12/2011 12:14, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>> After reading several dozen forum posts, it seems nobody has a really
>> good solution for doing this.
>
> You can thank Windows for this.
Nah. You can thank NAT for this.
> Traditionally in the unix world
> transferring files from one computer to another has been one of the
> most basic features (and it's the reason why there are so many ways
> of doing that, including rsync, rcp, scp, ftp, sftp, wget, and so on).
Note how all of those require a running server on a public IP address.
> Of course this requires for one of the computers to act as a server.
> This is made difficult in Windows. (Yes, I know it's not impossible.
> I didn't say that.)
Transferring files in Windows is trivial. You RDP into the other machine,
and use copy/paste just like in the file manager. Or you mount the share off
the other machine. Or let RDP mount the share for you.
It just requires you not be behind a NAT.
> The other traditional method to send files is through irc. This has
> worked in the unix world for something like 20 years. Given that irc is
> mostly dead nowadays (it's too "old-fashioned") most people don't even
> know what it is. This works perfectly in Windows too, if only irc was
> still popular there.
All the chat programs still have this, including messanger and all (afaik)
the other chat clients like jabber and AIM and such.
> One of the most common modern variants of this, one which also works
> easily in Windows, is skype. Of course many people refuse to use skype
> out of principle (the same kind of principle as avoiding facebook).
The principle being "I don't route my phone calls through random third-party
computers, especially those who haven't given me permission to use their
public computer as a NAT bridge."
For example, you can't use skype in google because google has enough
bandwidth that half the world would be routing their skype calls over
google's links if you did.
> If you are regularly transferring files to someone, just make him install
> skype.
Or any IM client, really.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/12/2011 14:39, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I've never used Skype. But I've used various IM clients. And my point is,
> they all tend to be inexplicably slow to transfer files.
They're generally not transferring directly between machines, since your
machine is normally behind a NAT. There's a server with a public IP address
in between.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/12/2011 15:56, Darren New wrote:
> Transferring files in Windows is trivial. You RDP into the other machine,
Which works, btw, even through NAT, thanks to Torreno or whatever it's called.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/12/2011 06:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:17:02 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> I'm not aware of any Unix system which *defaults* to letting remote
>> users access the entire filesystem if they know the root password.
>> Probably because it's a stunningly bad idea, unless the local network is
>> trusted. But anyway...
>
> Every unix system can do this with something like sshfs installed - on
> the client side only - and sshd running on the server.
>
> Jim
yep .. that's what I use to get/put files between my system and the pov
server ... both are "nix" machines. The ssh is just used to establish a
secure connection, but the underlaying protocol is ftp to transfer
files. BTW: there are windows versions of the the same tool set ...
stelnet, sftp (etc) that I used when I was exclusive on a doze box
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 12.09.2011 22:17, schrieb Orchid XP v8:
> > I'm not aware of any Unix system which *defaults* to letting remote
> > users access the entire filesystem if they know the root password.
> > Probably because it's a stunningly bad idea, unless the local network is
> > trusted. But anyway...
> To the contrary: Unix doesn't only let users who know the root password
> access the /filesystem/, but do /anything/ they like on the machine.
Except that most unix systems have been configured so that you *can't*
log in as root remotely. The system simply refuses to accept the login.
Anyways, that's besides the point of transferring files. Being able to
log in as root (remotely or not) has nothing to do with the ability to
transfer files from one computer to another.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> While we're on the subject, by default you can log in to any remote
> Windows PC that you happen to know the administrator password to. No
> special software required. Again, try getting X11 to let you do that.
> Good luck.
Did you know that the X windowing system was actually designed from the
very beginning to run remotely? Running it locally was just a "free" feature
on top of that.
In fact, it still acts pretty much like if it was a remote server. It's
just that rather than being physically remote, it just is being run on the
same computer as the user is logged in. (That's what the DISPLAY environment
variable is all about. You can log in to another computer, eg. using ssh,
and run an X program there, and it will show up on your screen, as long as
the DISPLAY environment variable is properly set. That's because X programs
don't really care where they are running and where they are displayed. It's
abstracted away.)
It's Windows that was designed to be a purely local system, and to which
remote running was patched in later.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
