3 ms·

Need to get a file from one box to another? Have SSH? `scp` is your friend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSH_File_Transfer_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

Need to get a file from one box to another? Have SSH? `scp` is your friend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSH_File_Transfer_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSH_File_Transfer_Protocol scp remote.host:path.txt local scp local remote.host:path Need a fast proxy to browse the internet securely and bypass restrictions without a VPN? SSH SOCKS proxy! Supported by most operating systems, but I tend to use it directly via Firefox so that it is isolated to one browser. This starts a socks proxy on the desired port: ssh -D $port $host Firefox has network settings, simply choose SOCKS, 127.0.0.1 as the IP and the specified port as the port. Then you're off to the races. Until we had proper VPN infrastructure to enter our VPC at AWS I would utilize this to view private vpc-only RMQ dashboards. Love SSH!

alargemoose 2y ago
If you use container tabs in Firefox, you can also configure proxies on a per-container basis! In case that’s useful to other people besides me.
- knowaveragejoe 2y ago
  In case anyone besides me had never heard of this feature: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-use-firefox-containers https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-use-firefox-contain...
  - Gud 2y ago
    Wow, how come this is not a default feature.
mikepurvis 2y ago
My company's VPN had some weird quirks with routing and DNS that were preventing me getting to certain web frontends, and being able to do a quick SOCKS proxy to get my Firefox accessing the corp network as if it was doing so from a machine in the office was a lifesaver.
Retr0id 2y ago
sshuttle[0] is a great tool that turns a regular SSH connection into something that behaves more like a traditional VPN. e.g. I can run "sshuttle -r myserver example.com", and when I next load example.com in my web browser (without any special configuration) it'll be routed via `myserver`. [0] https://github.com/sshuttle/sshuttle https://github.com/sshuttle/sshuttle
mdgrech23 2y ago
I don't see how this gets around a VPN? I still need a host in your example. That's what I'm paying a VPN for, a bunch of hosts around the world that are relatively fast.
- RamRodification 2y ago
  It doesn't "get around" a VPN. It's an alternative available to you if you have SSH access to a remote host with its own internet connection.
- samtheprogram 2y ago
  I used a server running in AWS for this while in China. Sometimes you don’t have a VPN, or using certain VPN providers might be heavily monitored and/or blocked.
  - whalesalad 2y ago
    My roommate was visiting family in China a few years back and I did the same thing. Got him sorted with SSH access to one of our servers and he was able to SOCKS proxy to bypass all of their unhinged filtering.
- yndoendo 2y ago
  Had a family member stationed overseas with the military. Bank of America chose to geo-lock IP access to their customer website. Used SSH box in the USA and informed them on how to configure their laptop to get around the restriction. No need to pay for a VPN or configure one for a single use. Ironically Bank of America had a local branch at the overseas military base. SSH is the best network service multi-tool. From remote shell, to file transfer, to network routing.
- kuschku 2y ago
  VPN != VPN. You're thinking about "paid proxy for e.g. piracy", they're thinking of "tool to make computers in two different locations believe they're on the same LAN". Both are the same technology under the hood, but the use differs. In this case you've got a network with some devices on it in location A, and a device in location B and you'd like to make B believe it's on the LAN of location A. Both a traditional VPN such as wireguard or OpenVPN and SSH with SOCKS can accomplish this.
jacobgkau 2y ago
SCP (what you showed as an example) and SFTP (what you linked to a Wikipedia page for) are not the same thing. SCP is an older protocol and, while faster in some situations, is essentially abandoned. Newer versions of OpenSSH actually use SFTP even if you use the SCP command, so you might as well just use the SFTP command instead.
- whalesalad 2y ago
  the cli command is called scp but is using sftp under the hood. tomato tomato.
  - jacobgkau 2y ago
    No, that is not correct. The SCP command was historically for a separate protocol, Secure Copy Protocol (and prior to 2022, it actually used that protocol). SFTP is Secure File Transfer Protocol. They are two separate things, and conflating them because of a compatibility layer is simply wrong. It's like saying the classic reboot utility and systemd are the same thing just because modern Linux distros symlink the reboot command to systemctl. Or, to stretch a little further, like saying HTTP and HTTPS are the same thing just because most websites redirect one to the other. There's no justification for spreading confusion and relying on a compatibility behavior for an obsolete command. That compatibility behavior is not present on pre-2022 distros, and may be removed again in the future once people are expected to have updated their scripts & whatnot. You're evangelizing SFTP, just use the SFTP command.
    - whalesalad 2y ago
      > classic reboot utility and systemd are the same thing just because modern Linux distros symlink the reboot command to systemctl You are acknowledging my point - in this case they ARE the same thing. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck - it's a duck. This is like arguing symlinks are wrong and instead of `python` you must use `python3.12` even though they are ultimately identical. Read the man page for `scp` and read the man page for `sftp` and seriously tell me why I should use one over the other. > That compatibility behavior is not present on pre-2022 distros Who is using a pre-2022 distro reading this comment? And I have been using scp (with SSH, SFTP) for a lot longer than since 2022. Like over a decade. Your comment reads like an HOA enforcer. Just raising fuss for no actual benefit.
dspillett 2y ago
> Need to get a file from one box to another? Have SSH? `scp` is your friend For less trivial transfers (recursive structures, large collections that you want to sync with minimal time) rsync supports SSH as a transport medium out of the box so scp remote.host:path.txt local scp local remote.host:path becomes rsync remote.host:path.txt local rsync local remote.host:path for the basics, then start adding the other options that you need: rsync some/local/dir me@remote.host:/target/ --recursive --times rsync some/local/dir me@remote.host:/target/ --archive # archive does recursive and also preserves times, ownership, etc. rsync some/local/dir me@remote.host:/target/ --recursive --delete-before --dry-run … … … In fact, I usually end up using rsync even for the basics, just out of habit typing that instead of scp.
- whalesalad 2y ago
  I must admit my rsync experience is limited. I do not know the behaviors and flags very deeply. It's on my list though, as it's surely another one of those foundational linux tools. I know it is even faster than cp on the same host for some situations.
  - ASalazarMX 2y ago
    rsync is the tar of network transfers. It is extremely useful, but has too many options, so one ends up memorizing a few use cases and carefully sticking to them. I still have PTSD from the time I played with the options and made the mistake of swapping source and destination, where the destination was a blank disk.
    - sigmonsays 2y ago
      haha, you say rsync is the tar of network transfers, but have you ever considered using tar for network transfers? Time a 'tar | nc' sometime to a remove server, it'll blow away the rsync time.
      - whalesalad 2y ago

alargemoose 2y ago

If you use container tabs in Firefox, you can also configure proxies on a per-container basis! In case that’s useful to other people besides me.

knowaveragejoe 2y ago
In case anyone besides me had never heard of this feature: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-use-firefox-containers https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-use-firefox-contain...
- Gud 2y ago
  Wow, how come this is not a default feature.

mikepurvis 2y ago

My company's VPN had some weird quirks with routing and DNS that were preventing me getting to certain web frontends, and being able to do a quick SOCKS proxy to get my Firefox accessing the corp network as if it was doing so from a machine in the office was a lifesaver.

Retr0id 2y ago

sshuttle[0] is a great tool that turns a regular SSH connection into something that behaves more like a traditional VPN. e.g. I can run "sshuttle -r myserver example.com", and when I next load example.com in my web browser (without any special configuration) it'll be routed via `myserver`. [0] https://github.com/sshuttle/sshuttle https://github.com/sshuttle/sshuttle

mdgrech23 2y ago

I don't see how this gets around a VPN? I still need a host in your example. That's what I'm paying a VPN for, a bunch of hosts around the world that are relatively fast.

RamRodification 2y ago
It doesn't "get around" a VPN. It's an alternative available to you if you have SSH access to a remote host with its own internet connection.
samtheprogram 2y ago
I used a server running in AWS for this while in China. Sometimes you don’t have a VPN, or using certain VPN providers might be heavily monitored and/or blocked.
- whalesalad 2y ago
  My roommate was visiting family in China a few years back and I did the same thing. Got him sorted with SSH access to one of our servers and he was able to SOCKS proxy to bypass all of their unhinged filtering.
yndoendo 2y ago
Had a family member stationed overseas with the military. Bank of America chose to geo-lock IP access to their customer website. Used SSH box in the USA and informed them on how to configure their laptop to get around the restriction. No need to pay for a VPN or configure one for a single use. Ironically Bank of America had a local branch at the overseas military base. SSH is the best network service multi-tool. From remote shell, to file transfer, to network routing.
kuschku 2y ago
VPN != VPN. You're thinking about "paid proxy for e.g. piracy", they're thinking of "tool to make computers in two different locations believe they're on the same LAN". Both are the same technology under the hood, but the use differs. In this case you've got a network with some devices on it in location A, and a device in location B and you'd like to make B believe it's on the LAN of location A. Both a traditional VPN such as wireguard or OpenVPN and SSH with SOCKS can accomplish this.

jacobgkau 2y ago

SCP (what you showed as an example) and SFTP (what you linked to a Wikipedia page for) are not the same thing. SCP is an older protocol and, while faster in some situations, is essentially abandoned. Newer versions of OpenSSH actually use SFTP even if you use the SCP command, so you might as well just use the SFTP command instead.

whalesalad 2y ago
the cli command is called scp but is using sftp under the hood. tomato tomato.
- jacobgkau 2y ago
  No, that is not correct. The SCP command was historically for a separate protocol, Secure Copy Protocol (and prior to 2022, it actually used that protocol). SFTP is Secure File Transfer Protocol. They are two separate things, and conflating them because of a compatibility layer is simply wrong. It's like saying the classic reboot utility and systemd are the same thing just because modern Linux distros symlink the reboot command to systemctl. Or, to stretch a little further, like saying HTTP and HTTPS are the same thing just because most websites redirect one to the other. There's no justification for spreading confusion and relying on a compatibility behavior for an obsolete command. That compatibility behavior is not present on pre-2022 distros, and may be removed again in the future once people are expected to have updated their scripts & whatnot. You're evangelizing SFTP, just use the SFTP command.
  - whalesalad 2y ago
    > classic reboot utility and systemd are the same thing just because modern Linux distros symlink the reboot command to systemctl You are acknowledging my point - in this case they ARE the same thing. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck - it's a duck. This is like arguing symlinks are wrong and instead of `python` you must use `python3.12` even though they are ultimately identical. Read the man page for `scp` and read the man page for `sftp` and seriously tell me why I should use one over the other. > That compatibility behavior is not present on pre-2022 distros Who is using a pre-2022 distro reading this comment? And I have been using scp (with SSH, SFTP) for a lot longer than since 2022. Like over a decade. Your comment reads like an HOA enforcer. Just raising fuss for no actual benefit.

dspillett 2y ago

> Need to get a file from one box to another? Have SSH? `scp` is your friend For less trivial transfers (recursive structures, large collections that you want to sync with minimal time) rsync supports SSH as a transport medium out of the box so scp remote.host:path.txt local scp local remote.host:path becomes rsync remote.host:path.txt local rsync local remote.host:path for the basics, then start adding the other options that you need: rsync some/local/dir me@remote.host:/target/ --recursive --times rsync some/local/dir me@remote.host:/target/ --archive # archive does recursive and also preserves times, ownership, etc. rsync some/local/dir me@remote.host:/target/ --recursive --delete-before --dry-run … … … In fact, I usually end up using rsync even for the basics, just out of habit typing that instead of scp.

whalesalad 2y ago
I must admit my rsync experience is limited. I do not know the behaviors and flags very deeply. It's on my list though, as it's surely another one of those foundational linux tools. I know it is even faster than cp on the same host for some situations.
- ASalazarMX 2y ago
  rsync is the tar of network transfers. It is extremely useful, but has too many options, so one ends up memorizing a few use cases and carefully sticking to them. I still have PTSD from the time I played with the options and made the mistake of swapping source and destination, where the destination was a blank disk.
  - sigmonsays 2y ago
    haha, you say rsync is the tar of network transfers, but have you ever considered using tar for network transfers? Time a 'tar | nc' sometime to a remove server, it'll blow away the rsync time.
    - whalesalad 2y ago