| gabriel rosenkoetter on Fri, 14 Dec 2001 19:00:23 +0100 |
|
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 08:00:22AM -0500, Leonard Rosenthol wrote: > You like security holes and poorly designed protocols - don't you ;). Huh? NFS is plenty secure, especially if you link it against libwrap, as any sane distro should these days. (Debian, for instance. All of the BSDs as well.) It won't give mounts to people you don't explicitly tell it to, and I certainly have heard about any currently-running nfsd exploits. Have you? If you're concerned about clear text data, you'll have to justify the overhead of encryption of network file system access over an internal network. The right place to protect that is at the border, presuming you're doing things that don't need to be encrypted internally. Anyway, your solution isn't one; Samba's "encryption" is a joke. (A joke who's punchline is "RC4!") > Use Samba! > > CIFS/SMB good (even if it was designed in Redmond)... That's totally insane. These are two Unix systems. Why should they use a network file system designed for Win32? If anything, AFS should replace NFS here. (And it *is* pretty well designed.) -- gabriel rosenkoetter gr@eclipsed.net Attachment:
pgpGP4FBFUX1W.pgp
|
|