Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm trying to establish a remote ssh connection to a Linux filesystem from Windows 7.

The purpose is to be able to enable Windows programs (like OneNote) to write files to the Linux box, so they can be stored there instead of on the local machine.

So I used this stackoverflow question which leads me to this tutorial since I am using PuTTY to establish the SSH connection.

A few things stick out at me in that tutorial however.

1) He seems to be connecting to the server on port 22:

But in the 2 pictures before that, he has destination port 139 on his server

Is that wrong? To get any response out of my server at all, I leave tunnel source port 139, and set tunnel destination port 22, not 139.

2) The main problem I encounter after establishing the SSH connection (a normal putty window opens, and I log in with my Linux username/pass), is with attempting to map the network drive.

Really I don't know what the 2nd name means (after \\127.0.0.1\WHATISTHIS) in

I thought connecting to \\127.0.0.1\foldername was the deal, but it appears no.

Also shouldn't I specify \\127.0.0.1:139 to make sure it goes to the SSH tunnel?

3) Finally I find even if I do manage to apparently hit the server at \\127.0.0.1\, it doesn't recognize any of the login credentials that I could possibly have set up

Credentials for the Windows machine don't work, credentials for the Linux box don't work.

share|improve this question
1  
Do you have Samba running on your Linux server? –  Steven Monday Apr 14 '11 at 15:30
1  
    
@Chris S That question is good. Thanks for the link. Can someone tell me if what I've done above (with the port 22 / 139 part) is correct, so I can eliminate that as a possible part of the problem? –  bobobobo Apr 14 '11 at 16:58
    
@bobo, if it's asking for credentials then you've got the port forwarding correct. If that wasn't correct, it would simply state that the server can not be reached (or something similar). –  Chris S Apr 14 '11 at 17:19
    
I don't know what Samba is, and a cursory Google image search indicates I could definitely use one of those (search with caution). But it appears that's part of the problem. See my next question? –  bobobobo Apr 15 '11 at 20:40
show 1 more comment

closed as off topic by Shane Madden, Chris S, Zoredache, RobM, Iain Apr 15 '11 at 21:33

Questions on Server Fault are expected to relate to professional server, networking, or related infrastructure administration within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

1 Answer

Have you considered alternatives to PuTTY? See my answer to a related question on Super User:

A quick search for "windows sshfs" turned up Dokan and ExpanDrive.

I have never tried Dokan, but it appears to be a one-man open source project.

ExpanDrive is a commercial product, going for $39.95 at this writing. I installed the 30-day free trial, and it has worked really well. I mounted one of my servers over SSH and it looks and acts like any other network drive.

share|improve this answer
    
+1 for ExpanDrive (I use it and love it). –  Chris S Apr 14 '11 at 16:49
    
-1 I don't have any money right now –  bobobobo Apr 14 '11 at 16:57
add comment

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.