Your patience in (re-)explaining this constraint to everyone in this thread who thinks you don't know your way around standard Unix tools is impressive. :-)

Would this make it through the SSH gateway? It creates a pseudo TTY and executes bash as a login shell within it.

  ssh hostname -qt 'bash -lc "tar czf - /path/to/folder 2>/dev/null | base64"' | base64 -id | tar xvzf -

Probably want to prepend a prefix so you can extract only those lines and filter banners, motd's, etc, like:

  "... base64 | sed -e 's/^/~/'" | sed -ne 's/^~//p' | base64 ...`

BTW, base64 isn't a standard command (nonexistent on OpenBSD), and the options can vary based on implementation even when it exists (decode is -d for GNU coreutils base64, but -D for the macOS command). You can whip up an alternative using od(1) and printf(1):

  #!/bin/sh
  # encode as backslash-escaped octal (\0NNN)
  export LC_ALL=C
  od -An -to1 -v \
  | sed -ne 's/\([01234567][01234567]*\)/\\0\1/gp' \
  | tr -cd '\\01234567\n'

  #!/bin/sh
  # decode backslash-escaped octal
  export LC_ALL=C
  while read -r L; do
    printf "%b" "$L"
  done

It might not be strictly POSIX compliant, but I don't think there are any environments where printf isn't 8-bit clean in the C locale. I've tested something similar (see below) on various versions of bash and d?ash, as well as /bin/sh on AIX, FreeBSD, macOS, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and Solaris.

You can implement base64 as a shell script using the above techniques, and do so without relying on awk, which isn't always available. If od(1) isn't available you can use dd(1) to extract stdin byte-by-byte and convert with printf(1), but that gets really slow. I've written an implementation that only needs an 8-bit-clean but otherwise POSIX compliant shell, printf, and either dd or od. It doesn't need tr, but it's even slower without it. It just converts the bytes to decimal and uses plain shell arithmetic for the primitive encoding and decoding, similar to how it would be done in any language.

It certainly isn't a complete cross platform solution but to address the inconsistent options problem and some of the availability issues openssl could be used instead.

  ... | openssl enc -base64" | openssl -base64 -d | ...

Self reply. Noticed I left out the enc option from the 2nd openssl command. Should be:

  ... | openssl enc -base64" | openssl enc -base64 -d | ...

Honestly, I find it distasteful to have to spend time working around somebody's incompetence at securing systems.

Doing it on your time means you delay delivering on your project and you let whoever did this get away with wasting everybody elses time.

> Honestly, I find it distasteful to have to spend time working around somebody's incompetence at securing systems.

> Doing it on your time means you delay delivering on your project and you let whoever did this get away with wasting everybody elses time.

While it may be distasteful, what's the alternative? Refusing on principle to use a system configured in a way you don't like is way more likely to hurt you than it is to hurt anyone else, especially the person who configured the system.

Even if you are doing work for someone else (which, I think, is not indicated in the post), so that that person will be affected by your principled refusal, there's no guarantee that they're the ones who misconfigured the environment in which you're operating.

I went around a very similar issue by doing it in reverse.

Rather than pull via SSH I login to the remote interactive shell and dump the file onto my own server via SSH from that remote shell.