similar to: ssh compat information

On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Chris Rapier wrote: > I think I know the answer to this (which would be that you can't) but is there > any not entirely insane way to get the ssh->compat information back to either > scp or sftp? There's no way at present. > I'm doing some extensions on scp (and eventually sftp) and having remote > version or capability information would be

On 11/6/24 8:07 PM, Damien Miller wrote: > On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Chris Rapier wrote: > >> I think I know the answer to this (which would be that you can't) but is there >> any not entirely insane way to get the ssh->compat information back to either >> scp or sftp? > > There's no way at present. That's what I thought. >> I'm doing some

On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 at 07:55, Chris Rapier <rapier at psc.edu> wrote: >[...]I had been using > Blake2b512 for the hashing algorithm but I want to put in a path to use > xxhash instead. Maintaining backward compatibility means I need to know > something about the remote. In the case of sftp at least, that sounds like a function of the sftp-server not sshd, in which case could you

On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 at 03:16, Darren Tucker <dtucker at dtucker.net> wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 at 07:55, Chris Rapier <rapier at psc.edu> wrote: > >[...]I had been using > > Blake2b512 for the hashing algorithm but I want to put in a path to use > > xxhash instead. Maintaining backward compatibility means I need to know > > something about the remote.

I don't know if anyone would be interested in this but I'm including a patch to allow for offsets when transferring files with SCP. It's pretty simple and assumes the user knows what they are doing (for example, if transferring with a wild card the offset would apply to all files). -A is the number of bytes offset from the beginning of the files. -Z is the number of bytes inset

I was comparing some traces from SCP and SFTP when transferring the same file 200MB file between the same host pairs. Even when I put SFTP in batch mode I noticed that I saw 403208 bytes from the receiver in comparison to 3368 bytes with SCP. I've attached the relevant output from tcptrace below (the b->a column is the return side of the trace). Mostly I'm just curious as to what

If anyone is using the HPN patch on a high performance link I was wondering if you could take a moment to answer a quick question Are you seeing vastly different performance between scp throughput and sftp throughput? On my test network (pittsburgh to chicago) I'm getting 26MB/s with scp (arcfour) and only 6.4MB/s with sftp (arcfour). We just started looking into this but it woudl be nice

I'm wondering if I'm missing something. With ssh and scp you can force the use of IPv4 with the -4 option. This doesn't seem to be an option or sftp. Is this by design or oversight?

The ability to log even just the names of the files being transferred, and possibly their sizes, has been a requested feature since early 2000 (over six years!!) and I've yet to see any of the developers on this list respond directly. I've found a patch from V?clav Tomec here: http://sweb.cz/v_t_m/ but it includes lots of other stuff (SecureID implementation and a tweak for being able to

Hi, Over the last two weeks I have received a large number of emails regarding OpenSSH's participation in the 2009 Google Summer of Code program. This email should answer the questions that you collectively asked. Please forgive this bulk reply - there are simply too many of you to reply to individually. If I have failed to answer your question, please feel free to email me again. If you

I almost never use bare 'scp' or 'sftp' anymore; I start with either 'rsync' or, if 'rsync' is not present and not installable on one end or the other, the "tar-over-bare-ssh" approach: ``` tar cf - localpath | ssh remote.host 'cd remotepath && tar xvf -' ``` I'd be in favor of one of the following: 1. 'scp' goes away, and

We have developed a patch that enables changing the SSH window size using the tcp window size as the source. This allows SSH to obtain maximum use of the bandwidth on high BDP links. We also have a page that describes the changes and performance. http://www.psc.edu/~rapier/hpn-ssh/ The patch against CVS is included here. Common subdirectories: src/usr.bin/ssh/CVS and ssh/CVS diff -u

On Jan 24 03:47, Malcolm wrote: > Quoting Chris High <highc at us.ibm.com>: > > > caught my eye. Do you see any 'advantage' to using sftp with an untrusted > > server? If so, any thoughts about making an easy way to disable scp both > > client and server side when doing an installation? > > SFTP allows file resume, while scp does not. If this

Hi, I was thinking about the difficulties and complexities of using chroot in scp or sftp-server, in order to limit the user in which files they can access. I've seen a lot of arguments about how it is pointless to try and secure scp or sftp (also from a logging perspective) because if we allow SSH access, the user can simply provide their own scp or sftp binary, that does not do the

Hi Would it be possible to add an option to the scp command, so that if a destination file already exists, rather than overwriting it, scp just skips the destination file, prints a message to stderr and returns an error (non-zero) exit? That would help me immensely. Also, you might want to think about providing a way to execute a series of ssh, scp and sftp commands through one authentication

On Tue, 2020-06-23 at 08:06 +0200, Markus Friedl wrote: > I had something in mind like this for years, but with slightly > different steps: > My naive approach would be to keep the scp user interface and switch > to the sftp protocol internally. We could add a -M [scp|sftp] option > to scp and select the internal protocol. Later we switch the default > from scp to sftp. > No

On 2020/08/05 16:17, raf wrote: > The problem is when, for example, you only have > scp/sftp access to a remote server, such as your bank, > and you use WinSCP to transfer transaction files to > them to be actioned (people do this where I work), and > the bank hasn't properly protected themselves from this > "vulnerability". I really hope all banks do take this >

Hello all, I've taken a brief skim of the archives available on theaimsgroup and talked to some others regarding the ideas on chroot SSH/SFTP/SCP functionality. I've also investigated a few of the various patches out for chroot sftp|scp|ssh and am a bit of a loss at finding 'an elegant solution' to the problem. Bearing in mind the excellent starting ground of John Furman's

Hi, my goal: sftp/scp only access, without the need for linux users. I want to provide 10 sftp/scp directories to 10 people. Let's call this "virtual account" I don't want to create linux users for each of them. I would like to create one linux user (backup_user). In his home-directory will be 10 directories. For each "virtual account" one directory. Every

Hi, On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 08:26:39PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 12:00:48PM -0800, Jim Knoble wrote: > > 3. 'scp' stays, but becomes the CLI for SFTP, and the SCP protocol breaks. > > Why does "scp becomes the CLI for SFTP" necessitate "the SCP protocol > breaks"? The way scp works today is "run ssh to the remote,