On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 04:19:17PM -0400, Chris Carlson wrote: > I need a utility that behaves exactly like psexec, and for the second > time, yes, I know exactly what psexec does. PsExec uses RPC binding of Service Control Manager, SSPI and default administrative shares (C$, ADMIN$) on Windows NT (family) to accomplish remote execution. There is no RPC binding of SCM on Un*x, there is no SCM at all. There are no administrative shares and there is no good reason why have them. What PsExec does is heavily Windows-specific stuff, there is no direct analogy in POSIX/Un*x world. Closest are of r* tools and their more secure brethren, such as sshd. The fact that Windows come with all this built-in and impossible to disable does not make them more clean, stable or robust. Adding sshd (or whatever) is a price for the possibility of not having sshd where it is not necessary. We all (well, it seems that only majority of us) gladly pay it. > I don't want central mangement. I don't want web applications. I want > to be able to walk into a network with my laptop that I've never before > seen, and execute any program on any windows system of my choice. > (That I've got access to, of course). Going physically to the computer > to install something takes more time and energy than what is needed; so > does using RDP or VNC to do the same. > I need this for unix. If you need Windows and Linux interconnectivity, sshd is better option that exploring the caveats of MS-RPC/DCE RPC interoperability. Best regards, Ondra > > Any more questions? > > - Chris > > -----Original Message----- > From: Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 15:50 > To: Chris Carlson > Cc: full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Psexec on *NIX > > On Thu, 06 May 2004 14:54:55 EDT, Chris Carlson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > said: > > > service, then removes it. I also know that the r services are an > > option, as is ssh, but these are not what I want. > > Can you quantify *why* those aren't what you want? From what you > originally said, rsh or ssh should be a good solution. If they aren't, > we need to know why they aren't in order to propose other solutions.... > > > If it doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist. In that case, I'll go > make > > one. I'm just trying to save myself some time here. > > Re-inventing the wheel almost never saves time.... > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html +>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------+ |Ondrej Krajicek (-KO| |Institute of Computer Science, Masaryk University Brno, CR | |http://isildur.ics.muni.cz/~ondra krajicek@xxxxxxxxxxx| +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Attachment:
pgp00023.pgp
Description: PGP signature