[ANSWERED] Which "remote control" tool

Gentoo-Ed · Last edited by Gentoo-Ed on Sat Mar 07, 2009 4:06 pm; edited 1 time in total

I'm installed a "server" to be able to boot into Gentoo. It hasn't any thing else installed just yet. Even the kernel is default from genkernel.

Since it's a server I don't want a monitor/keyboard attached and want to finish the installation via my laptop client. Is there someway I can do this? I would be happy with just a eterm terminal. I want to go back to the command line anyhow.

So two questions:
1. What is needed on the server side
2. Is eterm the right terminal, or must I go with a different one.

ziggysquatch · Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:43 pm Post subject:

You could just SSH in and admin from any ssh client on the client side.

You would need an ssh server such as openssh on the server.

Are you talking about remoting into X, though? That would be different.

Gentoo-Ed · Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 7:30 am Post subject:

No. Remoting into X would be vnc server. i don't need that. With linux I don't see any additional pro's connecting to a server with X.

I'll look in ssh , never used or set it up before.

cwr · Veteran Joined: 17 Dec 2005 Posts: 1969

Firstly, will the server come up without a keyboard attatched? That's the snag
I always hit, but my hardware is pretty old.
Secondly, why not log in with gdm? It means the server runs X, but that
doesn't seem like a major snag, and login is as easy as it is to your client.

Will

Gentoo-Ed · Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:17 pm Post subject:

If I X on the server indeed isn't a snag. But the server (it's a home situation) is to be placed in a cupboard in the hall, no room for a monitor there. If there was it would mean sitting in front of it in the hallway :-)

I wasn't intended to attach a keyboard or mouse

ziggysquatch · Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 4:00 pm Post subject:

Not having a keyboard shouldn't be a problem. Just make sure that the BIOS won't mind it not being ther (usually it is set that way already).

I have a server running like that in my basement, no monitor, keyboard, or mouse. I just ssh in and it acts as a file, database and print server for me.

Gentoo-Ed · Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 4:05 pm Post subject:

That was my intention too. I'm searching for a good ssh howto now. I read you must first configure it security wise. So when I found that I'll get it running and finish my server

cwr · Veteran Joined: 17 Dec 2005 Posts: 1969

depontius · Advocate Joined: 05 May 2004 Posts: 3526

I have a pair of home servers sitting in a closet in my basement - and you can't readily do the whole job with SSH. There's this little problem of installing a new kernel and booting into it. There are "advanced grub instructions" that can get around much of this, but from time to time you really need a console on the system, when everything goes wrong. In my case, I have a kvm I picked up at a flea market connecting the 2 servers to a monitor and keyboard, and it's seldom used. It's also possible to set up a serial console, but as far as I know it's not possible to set up an ethernet console, though it is possible to set up ethernet boot logging.

I have to agree with not running X on such a server. On my servers I have enough X installed to run X clients, simply because many times they're easier and more convenient, but I have not X server installed, let alone running. Running an X server requires some extra privilege and visibility, and constitutes another path for exploitation. There may not be any known holes at the moment, but it's still another possible path in.
_________________
.sigs waste space and bandwidth

cwr · Veteran Joined: 17 Dec 2005 Posts: 1969

Yes, I've used remote X on a local net, with no network internet connection,
but possible vulnerabilities do bother me. I'm not sure of my ground, but I
think the network traffic is all SSH encrypted, and so wouldn't be an extra
security hole, but I've never gone deeply into the matter.

Will

Dr.Willy · Guru Joined: 15 Jul 2007 Posts: 547 Location: NRW, Germany

depontius · Advocate Joined: 05 May 2004 Posts: 3526

But you still need some sort of console to see the messages when the kernel failed to boot, so you can understand why and how to fix. This is a simpler problem, because I understand that you can kick your boot messages out over ethernet. It's just full boot control that requires either hardware or serial console.

Harrumph! I wonder how much it would really cost to swap out the silly legacy console stuff and replace it with a service processor. It wouldn't need to be much, just enough to become the console and either take over the ethernet, or become a second ethernet. From what I understand, most "real computers" have them. Also from what I understand, most North/South-bridge chips are pincount-driven, and underutilize their silicon. There would probably be room to drop some sort of service processor on there.
_________________
.sigs waste space and bandwidth