If host is a valid hostname or Internet address, and port is an integer port number or service name, Bash attempts to open the corresponding TCP socket.
If host is a valid hostname or Internet address, and port is an integer port number or service name, Bash attempts to open the corresponding UDP socket."
I've got an example of a "practical" way to use it in an answer I did over here https://superuser.com/questions/563083/how-to-transfer-files...
The page already told us you can do this out of the box. It's the very first sentence.
It also clearly explains the benefits provided by using the additional, optionally installed tooling.
It won't look The Exact Same but it is functionally equivalent for many uses and is self hosted
It's not meant to be discouraging, if people find it useful then great
The article has two points.
1. They are providing a web server.
2. They are providing instructions on sending things to that server using netcat or an optional client/script.
I think your bash example covers point 2 only.
that is WILD.
A very similar comment was famously made on slashdot about the "just released" ipod in 2001, "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."
I was thinking about both famous dismissals as I was typing my first comment.
Still thought it was worth surfacing some arcane knowledge some may find useful.
I'm kinda shocked anyone uses it, I must admit.
I wonder every time I see a project like this, namely anonymous or transient hosting of any kind of user data, whether the developers get any kind of flak from agencies claiming it could be used to nefarious ends.
Serving plain text is obviously less of a concern
than hosting images, video, etc.
But I imagine the more anonymous a service is, the more attractive it is for use by unsavory actors.
Anyone have any thoughts?
The assumption that makes this a problem is that the service makes such users (at least slightly) less easy to trace, and/or the person(s) running the service might in some jurisdictions be seen as responsible for enabling the illegal activity.
Anything new here?
Of course, both of them are not ready for security-related tasks such as terminal sharing. So treat them like a "console" streaming service there you broadcast your terminal to the world.
Streamhut can be made more secure with some configuration tricks, namely, don't expose it's TCP port to the public, instead, only expose it's HTTP service. Then you can create a back tunnel (with SSH -L for example) to feed data into it's TCP port in a safer manner.
However, I'd imagine a better option is to beg miguelmota the author to add support for websocket in the cli client, that way the feeder connection can be protected by TLS rather than just a raw TCP.