Re: ssh tunnel, windowless-- possible in puTTY?
From: dmorgan-numeral one-ATdslextreme.com (no email)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 17:03:52 -0800
Thoughtful and thought-provoking. OK, at a minimum (no pun) how about
allowing that window to come up minimized?
It's the obrusiveness and distraction as much as the window itself
that seems to bother me, now that you make me think about it.
Maybe I'm using the wrong tool for this job. I know how to get packets
forwarded beyong the ssh server/gateway (with iptables) to the
ultimate, interior target machine. But I want the trans-internet leg
of the journey to be encrypted. ssh seems to have such nice
simplicity. I've played with FreeS/WAN (ipsec) but it's so very
heavyweight I think overkill. If only I could get the packets as far
as the ssh server/gateway, encrypted, without using ssh to do it, I
could marry that half-solution with iptables for the remaining half.
What other "pure tunnel" (no forwarding) products might be worth
On 04 Mar 2004 10:05:39 +0000 (GMT), Simon Tatham <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>dmorgan-numeral one-ATdslextreme.com <> wrote:
>> Using puTTY to set up the connection, is there any way to tell it to
>> NOT display any terminal window?
>I'm afraid not, at present.
>The main reason why not is that I've never quite understood how you
>should control such a PuTTY after you've started it up. In Unix it's
>reasonably easy: once you start your `ssh -N &' from the command
>line, you can use the shell's job control to kill it when you've
>finished, or use ps+kill if that's more convenient. But under
>Windows, people aren't generally in tune with the idea of bringing
>up the Task Manager to find and kill an invisible background
>process, and even if they were, they'd have a hard time telling it
>apart from any other _visible_ running PuTTYs because the command
>lines aren't meaningful or even shown.
>If you actually want this feature, can you give me some idea of how
>you'd expect to to control a windowless PuTTY after it had started