Re: Reverse SSH tunelling

"Martin Menhart, B.Sc. - m-sys EDV-Dienstleistungen" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.security.linux
Message-ID <[email protected]>
I've done a lot ssh-tunneling (back an forth,
cascaded-ssh-portforwarding ...) myself, because I think that allowing
the the needed ports is better than to allow all ports, then restrict it
to the ports needed. SSH-Tunnels ar also very easy to implement and
straight-forward. You can "just do it", needing only an ssh-client at hand.
I aggree with Glynn in considering a "real" VPN for persistent server-to
server-tunnels, although the reverse ssh-tunnelling has it's charm.
Not everything is so easily done with this technique (broadcasting, udp,
...). Furthermore to implement a persistent server-to-server tunnel,
implies some locking mechanism, that you have to maintain yourself, so I
decided to look into VPNning myself and luckily found openvpn!
I think openvpn is a good choice because of it's easy setup. Also it
should be reasonably secure, since it relys on the security of ssl.
It runs in userspace and utilizes one udp-port per connection.
If you want to give this a try:
	http://openvpn.sourceforge.net/

nice tunneling, martin.


Glynn Clements schrieb:
> Raistlin Majere wrote:
> 
> 
>>	I need some advice .. I have a situation where about fifty servers will
>>be located in fifty sites that cannot allow services to be hosted. These
>>servers will be in private network space behind firewalls. I can use
>>them to 'scp' files out to a common home base server, but sometimes I
>>need to access a command line console on these servers. I am thinking of
>>having a hourly cron job ssh out to my home base server and leaving that
>>tunnel open  so that I can access that console, but am looking for the
>>specific way of doing this. Security os pf the utmost concern, so I need
>>some sort of encrypted tunnel, hence the thought of ssh, but I don't
>>know how to do this 'reverse' tunnel... I was also thinking of a 'free
>>swan' vpn tunnel .. 
> 
> 
> If you have root on the remote systems, I would suggest using a real
> VPN rather than the sort of ad-hoc mechanisms which others have
> suggested. The choice of exactly which VPN is likely to be determined
> by what you can get through the firewall; e.g. if it only allows TCP,
> then you will be limited to a PPP/SLIP-over-SSH/SSL type VPN.
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.