You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Dec 6, 2023. It is now read-only.
It would be useful if one could specify a more free-form URL in LNK files placed on writable shares (slinky module), like in the drop-sc module for search connector files.
Currently, slinky takes a SERVER option that is then used as part of a UNC path (the UNC path format is hardcoded).
A free-form URL option would instead also allow specifying a HTTP url for the referenced icon file, thereby allowing grabbing of NTLM authentication over HTTP (which can then be relayed more freely as those over SMB).
Two possible approaches would be to either replace SERVER with a new option (cleaner; but breaking backwards compatibility), or to keep SERVER around and add the new functionality.
Please let me know which option you would prefer.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
As en example I've implemented the option 1 in pull request #826.
stfnw
changed the title
Feature/Extension: Free-Form URLs for LNK files (slinky module)
Feature/extension: Free-form URLs for LNK files (slinky module)
Dec 6, 2023
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
It would be useful if one could specify a more free-form URL in LNK files placed on writable shares (
slinky
module), like in thedrop-sc
module for search connector files.Currently, slinky takes a
SERVER
option that is then used as part of a UNC path (the UNC path format is hardcoded).A free-form URL option would instead also allow specifying a HTTP url for the referenced icon file, thereby allowing grabbing of NTLM authentication over HTTP (which can then be relayed more freely as those over SMB).
Two possible approaches would be to either replace
SERVER
with a new option (cleaner; but breaking backwards compatibility), or to keepSERVER
around and add the new functionality.Please let me know which option you would prefer.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: