I need to script SCP and I need to be able to do this by passing in the password in plain text. I am absolutely aware of the horrible design pattern that I am asking for. I cannot use certificates for this application. My challenge is that the box that I am working on cannot and willnot have expect or perl's Net::SFTP module. I have an HP-UX box with ksh and a basic perl install.

Using SSH keys is out because of a workplace requirement. I don't make the policy, but I do have to abide by it.

  • 3
    I'm not sure what are your requirements but you can do it by using some socat dark magic like so: (sleep 3; echo PASS; sleep 5; echo "uname -a") | socat - EXEC:'ssh -l user hostname',pty,setsid,ctty. In the name of all that is holy, please don't use this for a production environment :) – fim Mar 2 '12 at 17:34
  • That's a good idea, and it works, although I'm going to take a wild guess that if he can't have expect, he also can't have socat. – DictatorBob Mar 2 '12 at 17:45
  • fim, that is some pretty slick magic... but Some Guy is right, I have no socat. – wmarbut Mar 3 '12 at 17:10

To answer your question - you can't do this without external help from expect or similar to provide the password.

What is the objection to using SSH keys? If it's just a case of not wanting to use SSH keys without a pass phrase then you can always set up ssh-agent to hold the keys for you.

  • workplace policy... – wmarbut Mar 2 '12 at 17:33
  • Then you're out of luck - start schmoozing the policy makers. – user9517 Mar 2 '12 at 17:36

By certificates, do you mean ssh keys? Because you can always generate an ssh key with a blank passphrase and use that to log in without being prompted.

  • Yes, by certificates I mean SSH keys. This is by far what I would prefer to do, but I cannot. – wmarbut Mar 2 '12 at 17:09
  • Do you mind if I ask why you can't use keys? – DictatorBob Mar 2 '12 at 17:28
  • workplace policy... – wmarbut Mar 2 '12 at 17:32
  • 3
    Well, we've all worked at places with weird (or silly) policies, so I can kind of understand that, however... this might be one of those cases where it makes sense to question the policy. I'm guessing this is some kind of short-sighted security policy, which is going to have the end effect of making you come up with an even less secure solution just to satisfy the policy. – DictatorBob Mar 2 '12 at 17:35
  • We use HP-UX and, for user accounts, cannot use ssh-keys, the box is configured that way. The reasoning is that keys can be passed around .. (as if passwords couldn't) and would thus allow "anonymous" access. I disagree, but as the OP, I have to abide. Some 'security auditor' is being blamed (more likely misquoted) – lexu May 20 '14 at 4:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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