--- Neill Newman neill@entora.co.uk wrote:
David Freeman wrote:
--- Neill Newman neill@entora.co.uk wrote:
most secure method is definatly not NFS !! use samba instead...
Is this being serious(thats not sarcasm, its a genuine question)? I thought that samba was a MS based protocol and as such was as
secure as
a wet paper bag? Is it really better than NFS? if it is I will
remove
the NFS from the plan as samba may be used for the nt support.
I am deadly serious.. NFS assumes that the client is responsible for the authentication, and therefore anybody who has root access on a linux box can 'become' another use, and mount their files, not very secure!!!... Samba, although used by MS, was designed with the authentication stage in the server, thus getting around this problem.. Between NFS and SMB, SMB is more secure (not to mention faster!)... There are some other network filessystems (such as Coda) which may be better than SMB, but I don't really know much about them...
Sorry for doubting you. From what you say samba looks the better option, I will have a play with it and see what I can get to work.
Thanks
D
Thanks
D
Sz
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/