Usually when a person gets a shell by attacking some vulnerabilities, what a person gets is non-interactive shell.

So when I call FTP interactive client, shell fails.

Is there any way I can do interactive stuffs without uploading some graphical remote programs - such as VNC?


Graphical shells are heavy on the bandwidth, unreasonably complex, and usually unnecessary anyway. "Shell" in an exploitation context usually refers to a text-only shell; bash or sh or zsh for example. Or cmd.exe on windows. The idea is that if you can only run one command, then the one to run is a shell, bind STDIN/STDOUT to a network interface, and then connect to it with something like telnet. Then you can type whatever commands you want.

  • oh.. so telnet can do interactive stuffs? – Dotzio Sep 22 '12 at 7:47
  • @Dotzio um, yeah. Or nc or any other raw network tool. This is the sort of thing that should be obvious if you know what you're doing, so perhaps going over some basics on how network programming works would be helpful? – tylerl Sep 22 '12 at 7:57
  • nc seemed to be non-interactive according to my experience... for example, when I entered nc command itself, it should bring "cmd line: " that allows me to type some stuffs and execute. (of course, nc and using parameters would be ok, and I know this.) – Dotzio Sep 22 '12 at 8:00
  • I just found some resource saying that netcat is non-interactive while telnet is interactive. I may try telnet. Thanks. – Dotzio Sep 22 '12 at 8:04
  • both are roughly identical, though netcat does more interesting unusual stuff telnet handles all the subtle absurdities of a genuine telnet session (which no one uses anymore). check the man pages for how to use them. – tylerl Sep 22 '12 at 8:07

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.