What's the simplest way to copy files between networked PCs?

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 01:47:04 GMT, Jem Berkes <jem@users.pc9__org> wrote:
>
>
>> I need to copy some large files from PC1 (Knoppix 3.3) to PC2 (Mandrake
>> 9.1). It's a one-time operation and I'd rather avoid installing,
>> configuring and running NFS on either PC.
>> Both PCs are networked and I can ping PC1-PC2 and vice versa.
>> Please advise !
>
> Most distros have the OpenSSH daemon ready to go. Try connecting from one
> PC to the other with:
>
> sftp user@IP
>
> If that doesn't work try 'sshd' to start the OpenSSH daemon, then attempt
> sftp.
>
> --
> Jem Berkes
> http://www.sysdesign.ca/

He's copying between two in-house machines.

Why use ssh? Do you think the mice are going read his mail?

The other alternatives suggested use one heck of a lot less system
resources.

--
Alan C this post ends with w
q

"Michael Badt" <mibadt@actcom.net.il> writes:

> HI,
> I need to copy some large files from PC1 (Knoppix 3.3) to PC2 (Mandrake
> 9.1). It's a one-time operation and I'd rather avoid installing,
> configuring and running NFS on either PC.
> Both PCs are networked and I can ping PC1-PC2 and vice versa.
> Please advise !

The three best options I can think of are (in no particular order,
since which is really best depends on details):

burn a CD on PC1, read it on PC2

scp, which is a remote copy operation using ssh.

rsync, which will make a copy of a directory tree that is accurate
right down to the creation times, protections, and owner.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
Southwestern NM Regional Science and Engr Fair: http://www.nmsu.edu/~scifair

Timothy Murphy <tim@birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie> writes:
>
> (2) My experience is exactly the opposite of yours --
> "plain old ftp" is usually disabled by default.

To put some emphasis on this: whether it's enabled or disabled by
default, unless you have a specific need to run an ftp server you
should disable it. Every open port is a potential breakin through a
bug that hasn't been found yet (OK, maybe I'm extra paranoid on ftp
since that's how my system got root-kitted years ago...).
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
Southwestern NM Regional Science and Engr Fair: http://www.nmsu.edu/~scifair

Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> writes:
>
> He's copying between two in-house machines.

He doesn't say that. He says they're networked; you're drawing some
assumptions from that.

> Why use ssh? Do you think the mice are going read his mail?

Because it's probably going to be on systems that are locked down due
to security concerns. Note that an in-house network can still have
security concerns (the students get to use the same network I do).

> The other alternatives suggested use one heck of a lot less system
> resources.

Not if he has (wisely) shut down the various insecure alternatives
which will cause trouble if the firewall is misconfigured. And it
won't use significant system resources in any event.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
Southwestern NM Regional Science and Engr Fair: http://www.nmsu.edu/~scifair

On 02 Nov 2003 21:25:54 -0700, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> writes:
>>
>> He's copying between two in-house machines.
>
> He doesn't say that. He says they're networked; you're drawing some
> assumptions from that.

A quite reasonable one.

>
>> Why use ssh? Do you think the mice are going read his mail?
>
> Because it's probably going to be on systems that are locked down due
> to security concerns.

He said nothing to indicate that was the case.

I am not going to waste the next three days arguing with another fucking
paranoid that thinks Bill Gates or the CIA is trying to read his mail.

I don't even have ssh or even pam or shadow passwords and I use plain old
telnet and ftp all the time. I personally know hundreds of people that have
for many years.

------------------

I know the above was wasted. You are going to go off the deep end and rant
and rave about what a fool I am.

Fine. Go for it. But *I'm* not reading it. Been there, done that, and bought
the t-shirt.

--
Alan C this post ends with w
q

>> If that doesn't work try 'sshd' to start the OpenSSH daemon, then
>> attempt sftp.

> Why use ssh? Do you think the mice are going read his mail?

I'd opt for plain old ftp myself. But from common linux installs I've seen,
ftp and apache require quite a bit of configuration whereas OpenSSH is
ready to go in most situations. The sftp subsystem is very convenient,
really.

--
Jem Berkes
http://www.sysdesign.ca/

Alan Connor wrote:

> I don't even have ssh or even pam or shadow passwords and I use plain old
> telnet and ftp all the time. I personally know hundreds of people that
> have for many years.

Don't you ever connect to remote systems?
Very few systems I connect to allow access by telnet or ftp.

If you have to use ssh/scp for remote computers,
you might as well use them for local machines too.

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

::: I need to copy some large files from PC1 (Knoppix 3.3) to PC2
::: (Mandrake 9.1). It's a one-time operation and I'd rather avoid
::: installing, configuring and running NFS on either PC. Both PCs are
::: networked and I can ping PC1-PC2 and vice versa.

:: Most distros have the OpenSSH daemon ready to go.

: Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy>
: He's copying between two in-house machines.
: Why use ssh? Do you think the mice are going read his mail?

No, he thinks that most distros have OpenSSH ready to go.

I use ssh behind my firewall, with only "friendly" machines as far as
the ping an see, for tasks like the above. And not because I'm paranoid
that somebody's going to snoop, but because it's more convenient than
telnet, rsh, ftp, etc, etc. Its model for passwordless operation is
actually better than rsh's, and the semantics of end-of-file and other
such niceties are improved, it understands X better, and a quick scp is
easier to snap off on a command line than an ftp (or sftp for that
matter) session. Plus, things like tar -cf - foo | ssh somehost tar
-xvf - (or the inverse) work well, as does work with rsync (ie, it
scales well).

I used to use rsh I switched to ssh for the improved handling of X and
end-of-file/end-of-connection, as well as being easier to tunnel with
ProxyCommand and other such arcana, so that I don't have to switch to
something else to go outside my firewall. In short, it's convenient. I
don't have to be paranoid to prefer convenience.

Yes, the crypto is redundant, and use of X proxy is extra overhead
compared to simple remote access... but on modern hardware (ie, let's
say 300mhz x86 and faster) the crypto overhead is negligable compared to
the convenience.


Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 10:38:01 +0000, Timothy Murphy <tim@birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie> wrote:
>
>
> Alan Connor wrote:
>
>> I don't even have ssh or even pam or shadow passwords and I use plain old
>> telnet and ftp all the time. I personally know hundreds of people that
>> have for many years.
>
> Don't you ever connect to remote systems?

All the time.

> Very few systems I connect to allow access by telnet or ftp.
>

So? There are a LOT of ftp sites out there that are some of the busiest
server farms on the Internet.

And you also visit websites that are just plain HTTP all the time. Those
are not 'secured'.

Your connection to your incoming mail and smtp servers are probably not SSH.

> If you have to use ssh/scp for remote computers,
> you might as well use them for local machines too.

I don't. All the systems I need to access that have, for example, https as
the usual mode of access also permit other modes. Or simply allow a telnet
or netcat login.

This ISP will tell you, if you ask them, that there is no way to manipulate
the files on your POP server except via an HTTPS interface. Wrong. You can
just telnet/netcat right in and run scripts or operate interactively as you
wish.

Same for my IMAP account on another ISP, though I didn't bother even asking
them.

This is not to say that there are not security measures being taken. On
many sites passwords and usernames are changed immediately after you login.

--
Alan C this post ends with w
A
q

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 06:07:54 +0000, Jem Berkes wrote:

>>> If that doesn't work try 'sshd' to start the OpenSSH daemon, then
>>> attempt sftp.
>
>> Why use ssh? Do you think the mice are going read his mail?
>
> I'd opt for plain old ftp myself. But from common linux installs I've seen,
> ftp and apache require quite a bit of configuration whereas OpenSSH is
> ready to go in most situations. The sftp subsystem is very convenient,
> really.

Anyone have any insights as to which is more "scriptable"
ksh/bash/whatever ... sftp or scp.

????????

--
GNU/Linux is God
get used to it
declinton@sympatico.ca
Linux User # 276385