Remina is great on Linux platforms, but the question for me is why is this a need?
This seems like everyone could and should manage this independently. All you need is DNS name or IP to initiate a remote connection. In my opinion, it's better for IT team to know exactly where they are trying to go instead of clicking the wrong button or sending the wrong command
Yeah I agree. I'm assuming it's for syncing credentials across devices. Which means you'd have to trust their cloud service with your system credentials.
While yes, it would be nice to sync the entire session - connection and UserID / password. I'm more concerned with the connection itself. Yes, I can keep track of the addresses - but it gets to be a pain.. UserId / Passwords are different. I could care less - I mainly want the address; IP address or dns name..
I mean, honestly what's the difference between a word document/text file and the syncing at that point?
Right. An besides, even Windows has native SSH now. So why use anything else anyway?
Right, I've not used PuTTY in quite some time. Not that it isn't good, I just don't see the point of installing third party software that doesn't do anything any better than the built in tool that is always there and ready to go. And quite frankly, I find PowerShell's terminal to work far better for me.
I can't stand PuTTY. I'm not sure why, I've just always hated it.
I hate that it lacks a local shell and you have to launch the damn thing for every connection!
Maybe that's what it is. Tunnelling is a pain, I just find it awkward.
That, too. Other than doing a good job rendering fonts and being available back in an era when nothing else was, PuTTY really doesn't offer anything positive.
Another really good option is not letting them log directly into the systems at all and forcing them to use a config management tool. So something like Tower or a Jenkins server that logs all of the commands run and has the permissions set there.
Right. Just like the best defense is a good offense (or vice versa?) The most secure port, is a closed port. Locking down SSH, no matter how good, isn't as good as completely closing it.
Or using config management to only open it when necessary, is an "in between" step, too.
Thanks for the pointer. I did install using choco. I'm able to make it work now.
Edit: Just to see if I can, I may go back and do straight installs.
As I said above with the latest version I mount the root directory with \\sshfs.r\[email protected]
However, if you want to mount another directory like /var/www you have to do:
\\sshfs.r\[email protected]\var\www\ The trailing \ is very important!
It just doesn't work without it if your path is more than one directory deep. You also need to use backslash and not the forward slash.
On Server, no issue. SSH the same as with Linux. SSH on Windows 10 is "single user" just like anything else on Windows 10.
So then why would they have the statement about "usually to correct problems" as to me this would be a two person use. One who is using the desktop and the other administrator who is working on fixing an issue via ssh (presumably while the other user is using said system).
I'm not bothering to reread anything, but MS has long allowed admin connections.
Yes this has been a known fact for as long as i can remember... Admins are exempt for administrative purposes.
So they aren't passed because they aren't part of the character set of the protocol. So yes, it's SSH not passing it because it doesn't exist to SSH :(
That's too bad.
Do you have any link where it says that ssh uses these definitions? Maybe there is a way around it.
Can't find one, not with OpenSSH. Tectia supports it, but is crap in general. If you search on it, everyone talks about the ASCII limits of SSH. You'll find SFTP / SCP have the ASCII / Binary option for connections because of the underlying ASCII protocol in use.
Thanks, I'll dig around and see if I can find something. Otherwise I'll just have accept that it is what it is :)