|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 01:43:24AM -0400, Matthew Rosewarne wrote:
> On Monday 18 June 2007, Doug Crompton wrote:
> > I understand your concern with security but I am on a private network
> > that is firewalled from the internet. No ports other than what I allow
> > go anywhere else and it is locked down. My level of paranoia is a
> > notch below most on this group. On a commercial environment it is
> > certainly a completely different story.
>
> I'm offering a solution that is easier than using NFS (and not wildly
> insecure, to boot). Why bother with NFS if it's easier to do it
> properly?
I think you're being a bit too harsh here. There are a number of
legitimate uses of NFS, and a number of ways in which it can be used
safely (exporting mounts read-only, using networks known to be physically
secure, etc). Additionally, despite its drawbacks, it is still widely
used in many production environments -- I actually can't think of a single
place I've worked that *hasn't* used NFS in one form or another. Learning
how it works and experimenting with it at home isn't such a bad thing.
It's just like any other technology or technique: another tool in the
toolbox that can be pulled out when appropriate.
-mct
___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|