Re: Psexec on *NIX

[Ondrej Krajicek <krajicek () ics muni cz>]

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 () vt edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 15:50
> To: Chris Carlson
> Cc: full-disclosure () lists netsys com
> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Psexec on *NIX 
>
> On Thu, 06 May 2004 14:54:55 EDT, Chris Carlson <chris () compucounts com>
> 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 () ics muni cz|
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

Attachment: _bin
Description: