There's no need to use sudo in this case. Now would definitely be the time to look into ssh due to security issues. The syntax is the same, but ssh also allows a slightly different (and I'd say better) syntax:

$ ssh username@hostname

I found expect to be too finicky, but my experience with it is not substantial.

回复收藏 0 原文

怎会甘心 2024-07-24 14:59:30

他们做不同的事情。 Expect 是一种编写脚本的方法，否则需要手动响应。 rsh——远程 shell，不是受限 shell，不幸的名称冲突——允许您在另一个系统上远程运行命令。

也就是说，使用 rsh 执行远程命令、运行 sudo 等的安全漏洞和其他缺点是巨大的。

回复收藏 0 原文

今天小雨转甜 2024-07-24 14:59:30

我可以看到多种执行此操作的方法：

Expect over telnet、rsh 或 ssh
- 优点：单一连接，更少的逃逸问题
- 缺点：在不断变化的环境中变得脆弱
rsh/ssh 每个命令单独
- 优点：逃避问题更少，在不断变化的环境中更可靠
- 缺点：每个连接都需要时间进行身份验证，并且对于 ssh，握手加密
rsh/ssh 一次所有命令
- 优点：单连接（开销较少），比预期更可靠
- 缺点：维护方面的脆弱性，特别是当您在其中获得大量语句时，转义问题更加普遍（在 perl 中转义，以便它仍然被 rsh/ssh 转义，以便它仍然被远程 shell 转义，以便它可以由 sudo 远程 shell 正确处理吗？）
rsh/ssh 并运行脚本
- 优点：单连接、更可靠、更易于维护
- 缺点：找到一种方法将其传输到那里（rcp/scp 工作，NFS 工作，您需要确定最适合您的方法）。

考虑到所有因素，这是最轻微的缺点，因为您可以简单地执行类似的操作，

 open my $fh, "|ssh user@host 'cat > /tmp/myscript'";
 print $fh $script;
 system qw(ssh user@host), "chmod u+x /tmp/myscript; /tmp/myscript; rm /tmp/myscript";

当然，您可以添加一些错误处理（打开失败，如果 /tmp/myscript 存在怎么办等），但这就是想法。

I can see multiple ways of doing this:

Expect over telnet, rsh, or ssh
- pros: single connection, fewer escaping issues
- cons: fragility in a changing environment
rsh/ssh each command individually
- pros: fewer escaping issues, more reliable in a changing environment
- cons: each connection takes time for authentication, and, for ssh, handshaking the encryption
rsh/ssh all commands at once
- pros: single connection (less overhead), more reliable than expect
- cons: fragility in maintenance especially as you get more than a handful of statements in there, escaping issues are more prevalent (escape in perl so that it's still escaped by rsh/ssh so that it's still escaped by the remote shell so that it's properly handled by the sudo'd remote shell?)
rsh/ssh and run a script
- pros: single connection, more reliable, more maintainable
- cons: finding a way to get it over there (rcp/scp work, NFS works, you need to determine the best way for you).

All things considered, this is the most minor con as you could simply do something like

 open my $fh, "|ssh user@host 'cat > /tmp/myscript'";
 print $fh $script;
 system qw(ssh user@host), "chmod u+x /tmp/myscript; /tmp/myscript; rm /tmp/myscript";

Of course, you'd add in some error handling (failed open, what if /tmp/myscript exists, etc.), but that's the idea.

回复收藏 0 原文

梦亿 2024-07-24 14:59:30

如果通过 expect 在 rsh 和 telnet 之间进行选择，我会选择 rsh。 Expect 脚本很脆弱。破坏一个只需有人更改远程计算机上的 PS1 值即可。使用 rsh 还可以为您最终进入 90 年代并开始使用 ssh 做好准备（因为您通常只需将 rcp 更改为 < code>scp 和 rsh 到 ssh 并且一切仍然有效）。