similar to: mput/mget misbehavior

I'm seeing something similar to bug 1179 (https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1179), even with the reordered IP options check. For some reason, getsockopt is returning an IP options of length 2, value 00 00. Would Mark Weindling's original patch (https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/attachment.cgi?id=1105) break anything if I incorporated it? Platform: HP NonStop S7000 series

I'm using 5.0p1 (Yeah, yeah. I know.). For various reasons, I am unable to upgrade to the latest and greatest, which probably would solve my problem. Here's my question. When doing an scp from remote to local (e.g.: scp user at host:remote localfile), is there any way to specify the path to the remote scp? Or do I have to patch the code to allow it? ---- Scott

Oops. That's -T. From the man page, it doesn't really look like there's an ssh_config option for -N. -----Original Message----- From: openssh-unix-dev [mailto:openssh-unix-dev-bounces+scott_n=xypro.com at mindrot.org] On Behalf Of Scott Neugroschl Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 1:04 PM To: Volker Diels-Grabsch; openssh-unix-dev at mindrot.org Subject: RE: Equivalent ssh_config

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181 ------- Additional Comments From jason at rndpkt.org 2002-03-28 15:26 ------- mget and mput are just "aliased" commands to get and put, I'm assuming for some kind of compatability. mget and mput expect the get and put parameters and DO NOT function like FTP-based mget and mput (i.e. mget file1 file2.. file#). I'd be happy

Dear all. I would like to propose a possible way to make mget and mput behave more or less the same way, rather that just changing documentation. Please, bear in mind this is a poor attempt coming from a person with no C skills at all, so other than testing that only filtered files are transferred, I have not gone further. Hope at least to have been able not to corrupt any pointer, but I'm

You need to disable ?ChallengeResponse? (aka keyboard-interactive) authentication, not password authentication, to protect against this attack. On Jul 22, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Bostjan Skufca <bostjan at a2o.si> wrote: > > And to answer your question about what to do, you have three options: > - disable access to ssh with a firewall > - disable password authentication > -

I read an article today about keyboard interactive auth allowing bruteforcing. I'm afraid I have minimal understanding of what keyboard-interactive really does. What does it do, and should I have my clients set it to off in sshd_config? --- Scott Neugroschl | XYPRO Technology Corporation 4100 Guardian Street | Suite 100 |Simi Valley, CA 93063 | Phone 805 583-2874|Fax 805 583-0124 |

Dear Jeremy. Really appreciate you took your time to answer. I had already reviewed source4/client/client.c looking for mput (cmd_mput) command, but unluckily saying that my C programming skills are poor woud be really overrating them. I'm sorry to disagree for two reasons 1-. It works for mget, true that the source code is completely different. 2-. If taking a look into smbclient man

Dear folks. I am using smbclient 4.2.10 version (the one packaged for OEL 6, samba4-client-4.2.10-15.el6.x86_64), and observing a weird behaviour of the tool. I've got a Linux local directorio, say /tmp/eraseme, with a couple of subdirectories in it, say a and b, each one containing a dummy file, say a/AM.xls and b/AT.xls If I run: smbclient -d 30 -l /var/log/samba -m SMB3 -W

Quoth Iain: >I'm not sure if the work being done to allow OpenSSH to be built without OpenSSL includes SHA-1 support. Hi Iain. I haven't heard of this effort before. Can you give a few more details? Thanks, ScottN --- Scott Neugroschl | XYPRO Technology Corporation 4100 Guardian Street | Suite 100 |Simi Valley, CA 93063 | Phone 805 583-2874|Fax 805 583-0124 |

Dear Andrew. You are right, I should have taken a deeper look into the standard output during compilation. I did just assume source4 was the one for Samba4. Anyway, besides the source confusion (really, even if I had found the right one, following the code would have been out of my reach), I don't seem to find how that is related with the documentation issue, or the mput/mask/recurse

Dear fellows. Another piece of information. The issue reprduces on RHEL 7.7, Samba 4.9.1 [root at vnhprerhds01 ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 7.7 (Maipo) [root at vnhprerhds01 ~]# smbclient -V Version 4.9.1 [root at vnhprerhds01 ~]# smbclient -W "${d}" -U "${u}" "${s}" "${p}" Try "help" to get a list of

Hi everyone, I know scp is kind of the red-headed stepchild of the suite, but I'd like to propose an extension to the syntax for remote-remote passthrough using the "-3" option. Currently the syntax is essentially scp -3 [ -P port ] [user@]host1:file [user@]host2:file This is great, as long as both remotes are on the same port. It causes difficulties if host1 and host2 are not

I haven't been keeping up with the internals, I'm afraid. Does OpenSSH have support for Port Knocking? I might be interested in looking into that, as a way of reacquainting myself with the current code base. --- Scott Neugroschl | XYPRO Technology Corporation 4100 Guardian Street | Suite 100 |Simi Valley, CA 93063 | Phone 805 583-2874|Fax 805 583-0124 |

A new update. Same behaviour with 4.6.16. Exact issue as Bug 1249. Many thanks. Kind regards. El lun., 24 ago. 2020 a las 12:23, LPC DPG (<lpcdpg at gmail.com>) escribi?: > Dear folks. > > Was hoping it had to do with the release, but have also tested in 4.4.16 > and the issue is also there. I am aware a RHEL/CEntOS based upon 6 > distribution is not the most up to date

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Scott Neugroschl <scott_n at xypro.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 1:02 PM, navern <livingdeadzerg at yandex.ru> wrote: > >> Is there any available tool with this for pre-evaluating the resulting sshd_config for fatal errors? I'm not demanding: I'm thinking "that could be really, really useful". > >

Dear folks. Was hoping it had to do with the release, but have also tested in 4.4.16 and the issue is also there. I am aware a RHEL/CEntOS based upon 6 distribution is not the most up to date version I should test this on, as it also limits how easy is compiling most recent versions of Samba, but I assume though this is not a tricky test, and should work as documented in both 4.4 and 4.2

Dear all. Confirmed: compilation of 4.12.6 produces same result, mput + recurse ignores mask for files. Will you please tell me if you need further details, or which steps I should follow? Should I file a bug? Many thanks. Best regards. El mar., 25 ago. 2020 a las 9:52, LPC DPG (<lpcdpg at gmail.com>) escribi?: > Dear Andrew. > > You are right, I should have taken a deeper look

Dear Rowland. So sorry, I did not get the responses to this e-mail address, got them by the purest change googling again. I'm sorry to disagree with your approach: 1-. In my most recent updates you should have seen I am compiling Samba4 from source. Began with packaged distribution, but considering it might be a bug, I decided to test myself. 4 different versions, same behaviour. This means

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181 Summary: Undocumented mget and mput in sftp Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 3.1p1 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: trivial Priority: P5 Component: sftp AssignedTo: openssh-unix-dev at mindrot.org ReportedBy: Maldoror at