De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] en nombre de Justin M. Wray
Enviado el: jue 08/05/2008 5:41
Para: Andrew Sayers; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Asunto: Re: Suggestion to make remote recovery easier
>As for a name, I personally donot like remote help, nor remote recover.
Op maandag 05-05-2008 om 20:26 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Andrew
Sayers:
> * There should be three ways to enable remote recovery:
> - In the GRUB menu, there should be a "remote recovery" option
This could also be based on a special boot image; that way it would work
in even more cases...
-
Wow, you guys are going at this problem with a ferocious intent.
We are already working on a remote support tool, a lot of what you've
been talking about we have already talked about and built. So far it's
not finished and much work is needed in peer review so if you can lend
your time to looking
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 6:56 AM, Andrew Sayers <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) Creating or modifying an account that has the necessary permissions
> 2) Creating an SSH connection
> 3) Destroying or reverting an account to its original state thread.
>
...
> Reliably doing (2) is a hard problem. T
emote Assistance is taken :(
We need some good name ideas...
Thanks,
Justin M. Wray
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Sayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 01:35:50
To:ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Subject: Re: Suggestion to make remote
Okay, I've got the auction part of the dash adventure completed. In
principle, the rest should be relatively easy. The code isn't vastly
useful or commented so far, it's just a proof of concept really.
The script doesn't prune unlikely matches (e.g. socat+ssh when ssh is
already provided), becau
" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 19:28:34
To:"Andrew Sayers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,[EMAIL
PROTECTED],ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Subject: Re: Suggestion to make remote recovery easier
I see no reason why we can't (even with C) come up with a u
ists.ubuntu.com
Subject: Re: Suggestion to make remote recovery easier
We're certainly getting there!
I haven't yet given up hope of doing this with a shell script
(evidentiary question again). The benefit of a shell script is that it
leaves open the possibility of packaging a "lit
We're certainly getting there!
I haven't yet given up hope of doing this with a shell script
(evidentiary question again). The benefit of a shell script is that it
leaves open the possibility of packaging a "lite" version of the program
as a single architecture-neutral file, so that we can suppor
Andrew Sayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 18:57:41
To:ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Subject: Re: Suggestion to make remote recovery easier
Having looked quickly at cryptcat, it seems like some interfaces would
be best served by cryptcat+socat, so that you can get security
Having looked quickly at cryptcat, it seems like some interfaces would
be best served by cryptcat+socat, so that you can get security and a
pseudo-terminal. To generalise your idea even further, how about a
bidding system? For example, say the expert asks for a forward remote
shell on the friend'
On the other hand, I'm wrong about that :)
I've just discovered a package called socat, which is an extremely
general command line tool for creating connections between things - more
so even than netcat. It's in Universe, so it's presumably not that much
of an ask to have it upgraded to main. I
Justin,
I agree that a single solution would be best, but I can't see how to
make it work in the case of a system that's mostly broken. However, it
looks like it's going to be an evidentiary question - either we can make
it work or we can't. How would you feel about the following working
arrange
ughts?
Thanks,
Justin M. Wray
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Sayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 14:06:53
To:ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Subject: Re: Suggestion to make remote recovery easier
(starting a new sub-thread fo
(starting a new sub-thread for a new proposal)
I'm currently swinging back towards remote recovery and remote help
being distinct problems that need different solutions. There are three
reasons for that:
1) As I mentioned in a previous post, remote recovery needs to be done
in an extremely de
t <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 10:00:31
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:Christopher Halse Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andrew Sayers <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>, ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Subject: Re: Suggestion to make remote recovery easier
Le mercredi 07 mai 2008
Le mercredi 07 mai 2008 à 03:44 +, Justin M. Wray a écrit :
> Another idea would be to not only tunnel SSH but also VNC.
>
> Allowing the "newbie" to watch the "helper" do something at times might be
> the goal, and will make help facilitate learning. In addition the issue
> might be with a
2
To:"Christopher Halse Rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,"Andrew Sayers" <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
Cc:ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Subject: Re: Suggestion to make remote recovery easier
This was the original idea, with the SSH reverse tunnel...
It would be the ea
t SSH to loclhost only)
Thanks,
Justin M. Wray
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-Original Message-
From: "Christopher Halse Rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 11:51:29
To:"Andrew Sayers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.u
Wray
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Sayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 01:40:44
To:ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Subject: Re: Suggestion to make remote recovery easier
Based on this evidence, does anybody object to a bug
On 5/7/08, Andrew Sayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At this point, I'm trying to walk the line between unrealistic "wouldn't
> it be great if..." type ideas and overly-strict reliance on solving the
> specific problem I have in my head, so I'd like to go back to first
> principles for a moment
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Andrew Sayers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Based on this evidence, does anybody object to a bug report being filed
> against openssh-server, saying that password authentication should be
> disabled by default? Of course, that leaves all my ideas in serious
> trou
Based on this evidence, does anybody object to a bug report being filed
against openssh-server, saying that password authentication should be
disabled by default? Of course, that leaves all my ideas in serious
trouble, but that's a secondary matter.
- Andrew
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mail
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 8:20 PM, Scott Kitterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 May 2008 23:56:18 +0100 Andrew Sayers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >At this point, I'm trying to walk the line between unrealistic "wouldn't
> >it be great if..." type ideas and overly-strict reliance on so
On Tue, 06 May 2008 23:56:18 +0100 Andrew Sayers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At this point, I'm trying to walk the line between unrealistic "wouldn't
>it be great if..." type ideas and overly-strict reliance on solving the
>specific problem I have in my head, so I'd like to go back to first
>princ
At this point, I'm trying to walk the line between unrealistic "wouldn't
it be great if..." type ideas and overly-strict reliance on solving the
specific problem I have in my head, so I'd like to go back to first
principles for a moment. Please tell me if any of these are false:
1) It's common fo
On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 06:39:25PM +0100, Andrew Sayers wrote:
> I've now updated the page that Pedro kindly started at
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Recovery/Remote - this includes all the ideas
> I've got so far. This is my first Ubuntu development thing, so yes, any
> help very much appreciated!
W
I've now updated the page that Pedro kindly started at
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Recovery/Remote - this includes all the ideas
I've got so far. This is my first Ubuntu development thing, so yes, any
help very much appreciated!
You're quite right that the people you have to worry about aren't the
on
De: Andrew Sayers
Enviado el: lun 05/05/2008 21:26
Para: ubuntu-devel-discuss
Asunto: Suggestion to make remote recovery easier
>I'm a Linux user of sufficient experience that friends are starting to
phone me up when there's a problem with their computer. I guess most
people here know how long a
Personally, I'd suggest leaving any neophyte user's computer exposed to the
internet and not behind a firewall of some kind would be a mistake.
Scott K
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman
;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 02:51:25
To:ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Subject: Re: Suggestion to make remote recovery easier
Milosz Derezynski wrote:
> There is IMO no real need for a random password; instead, the user of
> the machine to be recovered should be all
Milosz Derezynski wrote:
> There is IMO no real need for a random password; instead, the user of
> the machine to be recovered should be allowed to enter a password which
> he then can tell to the user recovering the machine remotely. This
> doesn't neccessarily have to be more insecure; a random a
There is IMO no real need for a random password; instead, the user of the
machine to be recovered should be allowed to enter a password which he then
can tell to the user recovering the machine remotely. This doesn't
neccessarily have to be more insecure; a random alphanum password is
probably bett
33 matches
Mail list logo
