PuTTY vs Bitvise Tunnelier

Submitted by wraithdu on October 10, 2007 - 9:59am

I'm brand new to SSH tunneling. I just got a CopSSH server set up at home and I've tried both PuTTY and Tunnelier to make my connections. Both work fine. I was curious what others' opinions are as to which may be the better client. Tunnelier uses a local SOCKS proxy to do its port forwarding, PuTTY does not say (but I think it's a SOCKS proxy as well - anyone know for sure??).

Tunnelier does have a maintained portable version is PApps format -

http://www.vbap.com.au/tunnelierportable

which seems to work well also. So anyone have any comments as to which might be better to use? Or am I covered equally with both?


( categories: )

I confirmed that PuTTY uses

I confirmed that PuTTY uses a SOCKS 4/4a/5 proxy (buried in documentation somewhere I forget).

As far as I can tell, PuTTY and Tunnelier work equally well for my purposes. If anything, Tunnelier may be more pleasing to the eye, and be easier to manage security keys with. But I don't use keys at the moment, so it doesn't matter. Tunnelier offers more functionality if used with Bitvise's proprietary SSH server however.

I'll stick with PuTTY I think, it's smaller, faster, and does what I need.

I'm probably dropping the SSH server though and going for a full VPN with OpenVPN and OpenVPNPortable. Got it up and running last night and it's a sweet piece of software. I highly recommend it if you have admin privs on the computers you are using. If not, that's where SSH/PuTTY would be useful.