[comp.sys.ibm.pc] Procomm Plus can provide transparent file transfers

mregeste@ncrwic.Wichita.NCR.COM (Mark Regester) (01/20/90)

In article <170@nccnat.yorku.ca> shields@nccn.yorku.ca writes:
>My big wish for 1990 is to get the following:

We have been doing it since Procomm Plus came out.

>Software running on IBM PC under DOS (with complimentary software
>running on SCO/Xenix) to emulate a vt100 or other terminal with an
>underlying transfer protocol that will allow users to dial up to a
>SCO/Xenix host and, perhaps, read news or play games, while the system
>transfers files (transparently) from the host to the PC or vice versa. 

See page 197 of the Procomm Plus manual.  In vt102 emulation, and 
others, if you send the string <Esc>^script_file_command<Cr>, you
can execute any Procomm Plus command file command.  We automated
downloads by "echo"ing the "getfile xmodem" command to Procomm Plus
and then executing the "sz" command on our Tower.

Here is a section of the code we used:

 echo "\033^dos \"del $3\"\r\c"       # delete the file before download
 echo "\033^getfile xmodem \"$3\"\r\c"
 sz -aX $2                            

We also do something similar for uploading files from the PC to
the Tower.  Look at the parameters for "rz" and "sz" for other
options.

>The above would be an acceptable solution to a problem that I've been
>banging my head up against: the fact that relatively computer-illiterate
>users must go through a long string of esoteric commands to do any file
>transfers, and must sit and wait while the transfer is in progress
>instead of lining up more files for the system to transfer. 
>
>I'm talking about dividing the bandwidth of the single serial line into
>two "virtual" lines, one doing file transfers and one for interactive
>use. 

Sorry, the above can't do that.

>Please reply and/or post your answers.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>-- 
>Paul Shields, shields@nccn.yorku.ca   (...uunet!yunccn!shields)

-- 
Mark Regester Information Systems & Services, NCR Peripheral Products Division
 NCR:654-8340 <M.Regester@Wichita.NCR.COM>
(316)636-8340 <{ece-csc,hubcap,gould,rtech}!ncrcae!ncrwic!m.regester>
 FAX:636-8889 <{sdcsvax,cbatt,dcdwest,nosc.ARPA,ihnp4}!ncr-sd!ncrwic!m.regester>
-- 
Mark Regester Information Systems & Services, NCR Peripheral Products Division
 NCR:654-8340 <M.Regester@Wichita.NCR.COM>
(316)636-8340 <{ece-csc,hubcap,gould,rtech}!ncrcae!ncrwic!m.regester>
 FAX:636-8889 <{sdcsvax,cbatt,dcdwest,nosc.ARPA,ihnp4}!ncr-sd!ncrwic!m.regester>

Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (01/20/90)

In article <5782@ncrwic.Wichita.NCR.COM>, mregeste@ncrwic.Wichita.NCR.COM (Mark Regester) wrote:
}In article <170@nccnat.yorku.ca> shields@nccn.yorku.ca writes:
}See page 197 of the Procomm Plus manual.  In vt102 emulation, and 
}others, if you send the string <Esc>^script_file_command<Cr>, you
}can execute any Procomm Plus command file command.  We automated
}downloads by "echo"ing the "getfile xmodem" command to Procomm Plus
}and then executing the "sz" command on our Tower.
}
}Here is a section of the code we used:
}
} echo "\033^dos \"del $3\"\r\c"       # delete the file before download
} echo "\033^getfile xmodem \"$3\"\r\c"
} sz -aX $2                            

You realize, of course, that such a feature is a dangerous security hole.
What if someone sends you mail with
     Esc^DOS "DEL *.*"
or
     Esc^SEND "rm -rf ~\r"
     (or whatever the transmit-string command is in ProComm+)
embedded in the text?  See alt.hackers for a discussion of this security
problem in conjunction with terminal answerback buffers and ^W.

--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=- 412-268-3053 (school) -=- FAX: ask
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/46
"How to Prove It" by Dana Angluin              Disclaimer? I claimed something?
14. proof by importance:
    A large body of useful consequences all follow from the proposition in
    question.