Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary. Now with pictures!
- Posted on
June 3, 2005, 11:33 pm
rate this thread
mainframe. I've successfully configured putty to connect to the SSH
tunnel, forward the telnet traffic, and use our client telnet program
to connect to localhost and send its data. It works like a champ.
However, I am trying to ease administration for everyone. Although
this method is possible, it's not ideal. Why start up putty to make
the tunnel and then use some other program just for telnet access?
Putty has its own telnet program, so why can't I use it in conjunction
with making the tunnel?
I realize that Putty is just trying to make the SSH connection, but if
the SSHD server was running on the same server that my client connect
to and accepts all SSH connections without authentication, it seems
that, in theory, you could say in the same window:
- Putty, forward all local connections to port 3001 to 18.104.22.168:23.
- Putty, connect to localhost, port 3001, which then becomes a telnet
session to my app
The first problem is that putty obviously tries to connect to the SSH
server BEFORE it sets up its ports. Further, I guess the chink in the
armor is that nothing actually makes a connection to port 22, because I
never specify it directly. This realization is kind of defeating my
idea, but I think it's easy to see what my goal is.
I really don't want my clients to always be connected to my SSH server
(by connecting as a service, or something similar), and I'm not looking
forward to writing a smart batch file that will open putty and close it
when it's not needed.
Re: Using Putty for the SSH tunnel AND the telnet program
If the SSH server has a telnet client, why not just do (the putty
$ ssh <SSH server> telnet <mainframe>
RF> Further, I guess the chink in the armor is that nothing actually
RF> makes a connection to port 22, because I never specify it
Putty makes a TCP connection to port 22 on the SSH server.
- » ssh on command line: force using a group size (prime size) of 1024 (and no...
- — Newest thread in » Secure Shell Forum