Re: Cable for transfer of data?

On 24 Mar, 22:14, Dave J. <requ...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
on Sat, 22 Mar 2008 14:54:58 -0700 (PDT), in uk.comp.homebuilt,

'jameshanle...@xxxxxxxxxxx' wrote:
On 22 Mar, 18:44, Dave J. <requ...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
on Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:52:50 -0700 (PDT), in uk.comp.homebuilt,

'jameshanle...@xxxxxxxxxxx' wrote:

[XP file sharing]

If it is set to class then make sure you add an identical user account
and password that is defined for both computers.

I've never understood what people mean by this, is it particular to XP
home as opposed to Pro?

On my LAN I've set up file sharing in the past (we needed printer sharing
and it seemed best to get the whole bundle working) and it certainly
*didn't* care what UIDs/PWs were used at either end. I had to give the
remote login but other than that it didn't impinge at all. As a matter of
habit I never use a given username/password combo in more than one place.

Seems you are right.. I have recently tried SFS/simple file sharing,
and it didn`t need it.    As you say, it just gives a login prompt (if
currently logged in user does not exist on the remote machine)

Reason I asked is I've parotted it in the dim and distant past
(mental-note: don't-do-that!)  thinking maybe it *did* apply to XP-Home.

my mistake in quoted text. I think SFS doesn't ask for login at all
ever. I think I corrected that elsewhere in the thread.

google does say that xp home only has SFS.
note though, this site claims
In Win XP Home, SFS is the only option normally available, though
booting in 'Safe Mode', by pressing the 'F8' key immediately Windows
starts to load, allows access to the advanced file security options of
Pro edition

Never used the 'simple' mode, it makes quite a difference to administering
a machine way before you get near file-sharing.

where? do you mean the security tab that appears when you right click
a file or a folder and go to properties ? (when using AFS)
this is the only visible difference I see other than the actual file
and printer sharing aspect.

Admittedly it's only the single experience, I trust SSL ftp better for
file sharing and I don't often use formats that require special apps for
printing. Other people I've done it for have actually *prefered* identical
user's around their networks.

I haven`t tested file sharing much, but I expect it is quite
seamless.. (maybe moreso if mapping a drive letter)

For example people run a virus scan over a network.

I will be trying the copy or xcopy or xxcopy on it.

Apparently you can do file sharing with SSH   (so I am sure you could
do it with SSL too)

I'm forever miximg up those acronyms. It seems to me that SSH means what
SSL /should/ mean. I'm quite happy with most networking terminology, quite
comfortable talking about the various layers and totally understand why it
makes sense to at least visualise it that way, preferably implement it
code-wise that way too (unless your name's Billy).

SSH has an SSH encryption similar to SSL. But includes other
programs. Like a telnet like client that encrypts with SSH

However SSL is actually a (or at least was purely a) proprietary
methodology using https for a specific set of purposes. It is not a
'secure sockets layer' in the way I would mean it. SSH comes closer to
being that, despite sounding more like a specific utilisation. - Although
it's still not a properly separate extra 'layer'.



But other things can use SSL

The SSH client is just one use of SSH. But any protocol can be
encrypted and tunnelled with it.

Realistically, to get closer to a properly encrypted/authenticated TCP
'layer' ie. the implementation I've always thought should have been
developed prior to SSL *or* SSH (in fact for both to lean on) I ought to
dive into IP6.

Only trouble is, from the reading I've done, that severe culture shock
lies that-a-way :-)

don't know much about IPv6. Didn't really know it improves security..
It allows more IP addresses. But with NAT you can have 10/8 and
192.168/16 and another, so more than enough.

There is a book "IP Addressing Fundamentals" by cisco press. It overs
IPv6. I didn't read much of that chapter though.

Didn't know that file sharing had an encrypted mode. Thought my options
were limited to using a tunneling application (Zebedee or something,
though IIRC Zebedee won't handle UDP).

Zebedee download page says it is more basic than SSH.. So prob not -
such- a techie thing.

Any or Almost any protocol can be encrypted or tunnelled.
SSH does tunneling and encryption.

SSL prob does both too. Probably has to anyway.

I think these things work by putting an app layer protocol , within an
SSH or SSL app layer I think. I guess that's tunneling. Not sure
about whether they
both can put a network layer one in there.

There is a slight issue tunneling FTP because it uses 2 ports. No
doubt it can be done manually.. But there is are also applications
that do SFTP(that`s with SSH) and FTPS(that`s with SSL)
Then you`d have printer sharing too, (since it is file and printer

Thanks. Will have a look.

If it is just on the LAN then I wouldn`t really see much need in
securing it. I guess a really large office might.

I see authentication as the primary gain, over and above security from
sniffing. And it's actually quite wise in some circumstances to treat
internet gateways as potentially two way.. Mostly want to tinker for the
purposes of being able to offer something a step or two more secure than a
default setup the next time someone asks.

you get authentication with "AFS"/ advanced file sharing

I don`t know anybody that uses file sharing across the internet.. For
that, recently, I have been using ultravnc, which is really an all in
one, viewing and file transfer.

I believe it's possible to securely *tunnel* the standard fileshare.

yes, I mentioned a link from that picked up from googling.. As I
said, any or almost any protocol can be tunnelled..

Billy's open access playroom.

I guess that one isn`t a piece of software. As long as "Midnight
Commander" doesn`t run around in it I wouldn`t worry..

Sounds a bit like leisure suit larry.. a fun - straight- program!

PS, Apologies to James. I mistakenly replied by email instead of en-forum
by hitting the wrong key. Given the address's appearance in the from field
rather than 'reply to' I imagine it's so full of spam my message will make
little difference, but nevertheless..

np. I just got the message. Normally when people email me they have
the sense to mention on usenet that they have. As you have. So then
I certainly know(And always find it quite easily).


Relevant Pages

  • Re: RE: RE: Telnet/SSL v SSH
    ... I believe the original poster asked about differences in SSH vs. SSL ... When I was talking about elaborating on tunneling I was ...
  • RE: remote desktop question
    ... SSH tunneling is a nice way of creating an encrypted tunnel. ... Subject: remote desktop question ... this might be a stupid question but, is there any encryption used with ...
  • Re: ssh forwarding to ssl proxy?
    ... I am wondering if ssh handles ssl. ... > Then from the proxy if I connect to an ssl server, like online banking, ... the client side to the ssh server, then a single ssl encryption from the ...
  • Re: DICOM on SSH?
    ... It still holds true that the document only recomends TLS, ... doesn't say anything about SSH being inadmissible. ... SSL natively, many still do not. ... standalone SSL products like Stunnel to provide encryption. ...
  • Re: windows ssh client
    ... anywhere the target machine can reach with encryption ... between you and the target ssh machine. ... > my Linux server at home via an SSH session - then I tunnel a VNC ... The tunneling also works with other TCP/IP protocols like ...