11–20 of 42 posts
What's the benefit of this over netcat + mkfifo?
As for the uses, see the three author listed. For example, by using a file share as transport you may evade firewall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are many other protocols besides SMB that can be used to share a file. Webdav, ftp, nfs, two systems accessing a third file share, shared folders in a VM, ... Or a file share provided by RDP like in the example, which does not include the IPC share as far as I know.
Hah! You answered my question re how is it different. It’s strange… I re-read your comment twice a with a furrowed brow: “provided by RDP like in the example” and kept thinking to myself “what? There was a screenshot clearly showing…” yada yada SMB. So I went back to the look at the image in the readme. /smh. You know how they say eyewitness testimony is often among the least accurate, even immediately after the inci…
What's the benefit of this over netcat + mkfifo?
netcat+mkfifo does the actual transfer with TCP - so there's no tunneling involved. This solution tunnels tcp through file abstraction, so it works significantly differently. As for the uses, see the three author listed. For example, by using a file share as transport you may evade firewall.
That’s cool. A question that immediately comes to my mind is this: how is this different than using the Windows SMB native support for named pipes over the IPC$ share? From your example it would seem the users on both sides of the share would require the same AAA for your implementation as would be required to use IPC$ via SMB. If that is indeed the case, (I am not a Windows pr SMB expert, so perhaps you will tell me…
There are many other protocols besides SMB that can be used to share a file. Webdav, ftp, nfs, two systems accessing a third file share, shared folders in a VM, ... Or a file share provided by RDP like in the example, which does not include the IPC share as far as I know.
https://www.ndchost.com/wiki/server-administration/netcat-ov...
The main trick is to do it over UDP to get speed like Aspera:
Neat idea. For better performance, you might want to use native filesystem APIs, for example on windows use CreateFile with the FILE_WRITE_THROUGH flag to prevent caching and and extra flushing.
I think you can use named pipes if you are using SMB. Here is a example code in python (not tested). import socket import win32pipe import win32file import sys BUFFER_SIZE = 4096 def create_pipe(pipe_name): return win32pipe.CreateNamedPipe(pipe_name, win32pipe.PIPE_ACCESS_DUPLEX, win32pipe.PIPE_TYPE_BYTE | win32pipe.PIPE_READMODE_BYTE | win32pipe.PIPE_WAIT, 1, BUFFER_SIZE, BUFFER_SIZE, 0, None) def open_pipe(pipe_nam…
What's the benefit of this over netcat + mkfifo?
netcat+mkfifo does the actual transfer with TCP - so there's no tunneling involved. This solution tunnels tcp through file abstraction, so it works significantly differently. As for the uses, see the three author listed. For example, by using a file share as transport you may evade firewall.
mkfifo /mnt/shared/connection
nc localhost 12345 > /mnt/shared/connection good thing I needed HTTP access or else i had to find that socks5 server that's actually working again.
For use on flights where they give you "messenger only" internet access.
Feature request: TCP over JPEG cat pictures on HTTP port 80
It would likely do a better job at circumventing the China firewall than existing VPNs that can be flagged as VPN protocols.
Feature request: TCP over Facebook Messenger, TCP over Whatsapp For use on flights where they give you "messenger only" internet access. Feature request: TCP over JPEG cat pictures on HTTP port 80 It would likely do a better job at circumventing the China firewall than existing VPNs that can be flagged as VPN protocols.
You could just sniff the traffic for an already-logged-in MAC and clone it.