[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <A16F9DC0E61ACF43AF708AC2D3BE2B063C2B@gracey.internal.compucounts.com>
From: chris at compucounts.com (Chris Carlson)
Subject: Psexec on *NIX
I need a utility that behaves exactly like psexec, and for the second
time, yes, I know exactly what psexec does.
I need to be able to execute commands on remote windows systems without
doing anything to them beforehand. All suggestions thus far have
required additional software to be installed on these systems but I
don't want to leave anything on these systems or have to touch them in
any way. I know it is possible to remotely install any solution and
then use it, but it doesn't make sense to do so. Why would I install
and run an ssh daemon just to use it to run another program, then delete
the ssh daemon? Why would I do that with anything? It just doesn't
make sense.
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.
Say I'm sitting on a picnic bench tapped into my corporate wireless
network in Florida from my laptop and for some strange reason I need the
MAC address of a desktop in Ohio. In windows, it only takes a 'psexec
\\ohio ipconfig /all'. I don't need to use a remote desktop client, I
don't need to start the telnet server service on the system, and I don't
need to log into a router to check its arp tables. I simply execute a
command on the remote system.
I need this for unix.
Any more questions?
- Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu]
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 15:50
To: Chris Carlson
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Psexec on *NIX
On Thu, 06 May 2004 14:54:55 EDT, Chris Carlson <chris@...pucounts.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....
Powered by blists - more mailing lists