Printable View
Hi There
I just want to now if there is a way that you can mount a local drive with a telnet command :confused: and if you can start or open a telnet port on a remote computer over a LAN and what is the command for that if you can help me with this??? :confused:
thanxs
Guys
Telnet is a remote access protocol... it only gives you an unsecure remote shell - you really can't do much with file transfer (unless someone's got a clever hack...). If you need to transfer files, you'll be stuck with scp, ftp, or some kind of samba/nfs deal.
Yeah... so are you one of the one's that doesn't? Is that the joke? I suppose it's a unique twist on an otherwise overused sig line...Quote:
There are ten kinds of people:
Those who understand binary and Those who don't
if you start the telnet server on your own machine you can telnet into it using 127.0.0.1 and have access to all the partitions just as in DOS.
to start the telnet server on a remote you have to have permissions and it needs to not be disabled. (if it is there's some registry changes that can be made using reg.exe from the resource kit that will correct this but its easier just to walk over to the machine and enable it.)
Get psexec.exe from systernals.com then enter:
psexec \\<mach_name> net start telnet
if your not logged on as admin:
psexec \\<mach_name> -u <admin_name> net start telnet
you will be prompted for the password
When it comes to transfering files, there's nothing you need Telnet for that you can't run from DOS.
Co-sign, that's correct.. my suggestion being FTP. :)Quote:
If you need to transfer files, you'll be stuck with scp, ftp, or some kind of samba/nfs deal.
Hey Hey,Quote:
Originally posted here by Spyder32
When it comes to transfering files, there's nothing you need Telnet for that you can't run from DOS.
Co-sign, that's correct.. my suggestion being FTP. :)
Why would you suggest an insecure protocol??
Also the co-sign is really started to get annoying :D
Peace,
HT
I just Want to now because one of my buddies told me that he mounted a drive in telnet and I just want proof to bring him down to earth and then I want to use his so called computer skills agains him because he is a loud mouth that now every thing. thanx for the help guys.
and you are real funny embro1001 and by the way i'm learning binary thanx for the motovation.
Hey Hey,Quote:
Originally posted here by maddog1
and you are real funny embro1001 and by the way i'm learning binary thanx for the motovation.
He was commenting on the fact that it's written "There are 10 people in this world, those who known binary and those who don't".. 10 (binary) = 2 (decimal)... However if you say ten (or type ten)... it is a decimal number and the statement no longer holds true..
With geek humour you have to get it exact, otherwise it loses it's humour.
Peace,
HT
He may have telnet'd in, and then mounted the remote drive on the remote machine... like if /dev/hda1 wasn't mounted, he may have gone mount /dev/hda1 /mnt/foo, and then navigated through "foo"... but I daresay it's impossible to mount a remote drive for local access. He could have SCP'd something after mounting that remote drive...Quote:
Originally posted here by maddog1
I just Want to now because one of my buddies told me that he mounted a drive in telnet and I just want proof to bring him down to earth and then I want to use his so called computer skills agains him because he is a loud mouth that now every thing. thanx for the help guys.
Yeah... I didn't know that you didn't know the actual joke, or I wouldn't have said a thing. As long as you're learning binary, you may as well look at hex as well. In my opinion it's easier to convert from binary to hex than decimal to hex (since binary is usually broken up into 4 bit chunks, which are easily represented in hex, i.e. 1111-1111 = F-F, because 1111=15, and F=15).Quote:
and you are real funny embro1001 and by the way i'm learning binary thanx for the motovation.
Then, while you're at it, you should take a crack at assembly (or HLA, which is a bit easier, but still gives you the fundamentals), that way you can put your new knowledge of binary and hex to good use.
Then, while your doing assembly, you could take a look at C, because you could make cool assembly functions that you could integrate with it (using SEP/SEP).
And gee golly wiz, by the time you finished all that, you could look down on your uber-1337 friend and tell him straight out he's wrong, because you'd have more skillz than he.
Or you could just tell your friend to STFU... that usually works where I'm from.
Because it's only as secure/insecure as the user lets it be. JMHOQuote:
Why would you suggest an insecure protocol??
Co-sign, it really is.. :DQuote:
Also the co-sign is really started to get annoying
Hey Hey,Quote:
Originally posted here by Spyder32
Because it's only as secure/insecure as the user lets it be. JMHO
Co-sign, it really is.. :D
If you agree it's annoying, then I really hope it stops..
As far as only as secure/insecure as the user lets it be??? You're talking about a plain-text protocol that could be easily sniffed.... How is this as "secure/insecure as the user lets it be". That's like saying telnet is only "secure/insecure as the user let it be"... This is known to not be true.. That is why things like ssh and sftp even scp have been created... because the protocols are inherently insecure... I've even worked in relatively secure internal environments where ftp is not allowed because it's considered to be an insecure protocol...
I'd really love to see an explanation on this one.
Peace,
HT
Yeah... authentication is pretty easily sniffed off the network if you're doing FTP (using programs like Cain and Able for Windows pretty much takes the work out of sniffing for you).
But if you're on a direct connection to your cable modem, which is in turn connecting to a remote machine which is directly connected, the odds of someone "in-between" sniffing your info is pretty low...
Tracing my route from here to Google looks like this:
As you can see, most all of those are ISP hubs... and they're not too concerned with my FTP info. FTP is just kind of the defacto standard for file transfer...Quote:
Tracing route to google.com [216.239.39.99]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms xxxxx
2 24 ms 31 ms 9 ms xxxxx
3 11 ms 14 ms 11 ms xxxxx
4 29 ms 30 ms 32 ms xxxxx
5 47 ms 43 ms 70 ms gar1-p360.sc1ca.ip.att.net [12.122.2.242]
6 54 ms 48 ms 46 ms tbr1-p012102.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.2.246]
7 56 ms 43 ms 50 ms ggr2-p300.sffca.ip.att.net [12.123.13.190]
8 45 ms 45 ms 44 ms so-8-1.car3.SanJose1.Level3.net [209.0.227.29]
9 47 ms 53 ms 47 ms ae-1-51.bbr1.SanJose1.Level3.net [4.68.123.1]
10 113 ms 103 ms 108 ms ae-0-0.bbr1.Washington1.Level3.net [64.159.0.229]
11 108 ms 101 ms 105 ms ge-1-1-51.car1.Washington1.Level3.net [4.68.121.5]
12 103 ms 102 ms 107 ms 4.79.228.26
13 104 ms 103 ms 103 ms 64.233.174.126
14 107 ms 108 ms 106 ms 216.239.48.90
15 109 ms 104 ms 106 ms 216.239.47.58
16 108 ms 109 ms 102 ms 216.239.39.99
Trace complete.
I can see you are in no mood to take a joke, but okay..Quote:
If you agree it's annoying, then I really hope it stops..
Care to share one that CAN'T easily be sniffed? C'mon, that's bull.Quote:
You're talking about a plain-text protocol that could be easily sniffed....
Easily. While running an ftpd, make sure you have set passwords that are strong, limit accounts (none except yours?), have a secure connection to your ftpd that masks your IP and/or moniter ANY traffic towards the server.Quote:
How is this as "secure/insecure as the user lets it be".
This of course is as opposed to someone who doesnt give a **** about their connection, their server, etc. Thus, "secure/insecure as user lets it be". :)
If you need further explanation, let me know.. I don't understand the difficult concept. Sure, in the case of Telnet, it's BETTER (safer, etc) to use SSH. In the case of FTP however, why not keep it simple for a home user who is merely trying to transfer files.
EDIT:I'm sorry, I disagree.. maybe the odd's might be lowered somewhat, but it can still be easily done IMO.Quote:
the odds of someone "in-between" sniffing your info is pretty low...
It has nothing to do with a joke.. I've recieved quite a bit of support from people that agree with the cosign.. Since you've returned you've contributed almost nothing of value and put that damn co-sign on everything.. It's just pissing us off.Quote:
Sniff my SSH data and tell me what the contents say..Quote:
Care to share one that CAN'T easily be sniffed? C'mon, that's bull.
Having a strong password doesn't limit people that sniff the password and login using it... it's an insecure protocol... You aren't make the protocol more secure... you're making it's usage more secureQuote:
Easily. While running an ftpd, make sure you have set passwords that are strong, limit accounts (none except yours?), have a secure connection to your ftpd that masks your IP and/or moniter ANY traffic towards the server.
I'm not sure how you can say this and not understand it... You agree with the use of SSH but not the use of SFTP? They use the same daemon... It shouldn't be about keeping it simple... that's how Microsoft became so big and how there were so many flaws in their operating system.. Things that should have been closed by default but were left open to make usage easier to the user... some of the features of IE and Outlook are prime examples.Quote:
If you need further explanation, let me know.. I don't understand the difficult concept. Sure, in the case of Telnet, it's BETTER (safer, etc) to use SSH. In the case of FTP however, why not keep it simple for a home user who is merely trying to transfer files.
Plain and simple.. this is a security site... you recommended an insecure solution.. admit that you have no clue what you're talking about and quit wasting our time with your useless posts... Nobody cares about you increasing your post count and your attempts at looking intelligent.
Peace,
HT
Spyder spyder spyder... FTP sends its passwords and data in clear text. It doesn't matter how strong your passwords are or how much you limit your accounts ; if your data gets sniffed, you're done (because it's sent in clear text).
"Having a secure connection to your ftpd" implies something else than just FTP (Secure FTP, sftp - whatever the difference is - I'm sure we could have another nice thread discussing that :D). In the case of Telnet, it's better to use SSH, but in the case of FTP it's not? Tsk tsk...
Well I'm glad it was a group effort? One that was never brought to my attention until you pointed it out. If something bothers you, why not say it? Why wait?Quote:
It has nothing to do with a joke.. I've recieved quite a bit of support from people that agree with the cosign.. Since you've returned you've contributed almost nothing of value and put that damn co-sign on everything.. It's just pissing us off.
Insecure, yes.. I agree. I guess I used wrong wording by saying making the protocol more secure and not it's useage.. oh I'm sorry, I didn't. I said the server..Quote:
it's an insecure protocol... You aren't make the protocol more secure... you're making it's usage more secure
I agree with why SSH and not SFTP, I didn't realize that point. However if the user is merely transfering files, then.. see where I'm getting at?
Yes, quite possibly I did -- for something as miniscule as transfering files. Yes HT, I have NO clue what I'm talking about. My useless posts? Oh, so those who frequent GCC/Cosmos are useless themselves as well? My post count, huh. Yeah, you're whining about my post count and **** when I can name people who have been here same amount of time with MUCH more posts or the same. Honestly.. I could give two ****s my post count.Quote:
you recommended an insecure solution.. admit that you have no clue what you're talking about and quit wasting our time with your useless posts... Nobody cares about you increasing your post count and your attempts at looking intelligent.
Oh, and as for looking intelligent. Yeah, that was my goal. You got me. It wasn't the fact that I attempted to help someone with a small task. :rolleyes:
Negative: I see your point, that made sense..
Good way to explain it, I see the point trying to be made.Quote:
In the case of Telnet, it's better to use SSH, but in the case of FTP it's not?