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 it is not the case and to be clear, I am not asserting that it is or trying to say anything negative; I am just curious and you seem like a pretty likely source to be able to answer the question, since something motivated you to write this tool)
One difference would seem at first brush is that a named pipe used for this would not need to be periodically truncated in 10 minute intervals to prevent runaway file growth. Again, not knocking what you’ve made at all, I’m genuinely curious for the answer.
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 incident in question, yet the eyewitness is always so sure, “but I just saw it and…” Wow. Mind playing tricks on me.
Anyway, you’re right, there was no SMB involved in that readme. :-) So strange when you can’t trust your own eyes or short-term memory. Crazy.
I wish unix domain sockets worked over NFS. It would be such a nice way to assign user-level permissions on networked services. ssh /services/gw etc. Maybe even file:/// -urls for the web browser, though the cross domain logic would need updates.
It would presume trusting the permission system over NFS, though.
If that is indeed the case, (I am not a Windows pr SMB expert, so perhaps you will tell me it is not the case and to be clear, I am not asserting that it is or trying to say anything negative; I am just curious and you seem like a pretty likely source to be able to answer the question, since something motivated you to write this tool)
One difference would seem at first brush is that a named pipe used for this would not need to be periodically truncated in 10 minute intervals to prevent runaway file growth. Again, not knocking what you’ve made at all, I’m genuinely curious for the answer.