Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | ssh.com sshd 3.2.x, really enforcing sftp-only |
|---|---|
| Date: | Fri, 22 Apr 2005 11:34:24 -0600 |
Hello group This seems strange to me, perhaps someone here has encountered this situation, and either has found a solution to it, or can confirm that there is no solution: Using ssh.com's version 3.2 ssh server for Windows, I can't seem to actually prevent remote command execution. The server is intended for sftp only, and yet it doesn't seem to be possible to completely prevent remote commands. The "PermitUserTerminal" variable is set to "no" in the config file - this has the effect of preventing an interactive login, but executing individual commands is still entirely possible: plink user@host Using username "user". user@host's password: FATAL ERROR: Server refused to start a shell/command plink user@host cmd /c dir c:\ Using username "user". user@host's password: [SNIP - big old directory listing] The 4.3 version adds two new options: Terminal.AllowUsers and Terminal.DenyUsers. In the 4.3 documentation it states: "Note that when terminal access is denied so is remote command execution" So, my question is twofold - (A) Am I right that it's actually impossible to set up a truly sftp-only server using the 3.2.x series of ssh servers for Windows? This seems counterintuitive, but dumber things have been true of even more expensive commercial software... (B) Can anyone confirm that it actually does work in the 4.3.x version? Thanks in advance, and apologies if this has been covered recently already. Mark Senior ---End sensible content--- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | SCP + iptables (firewall) - stalled transfers, Bell, David I. |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | pam_get_data / pam_set_data in a PAM module does not work with sshd, Kala B |
| Previous by Thread: | SCP + iptables (firewall) - stalled transfers, Bell, David I. |
| Next by Thread: | RE: ssh.com sshd 3.2.x, really enforcing sftp-only, Pfister, Thomas P |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |