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...
Thanks
D
Sz
Adam
Adam Bower, abower@zeus.com Tel: +44 1223 525000 System Administrator Fax: +44 1223 525100 Zeus Technology Ltd http://www.zeus.com Zeus House, Cowley Road Cambridge CB4 0ZT England
alug, the Anglian Linux User Group list Send list replies to alug@stu.uea.ac.uk http://rabbit.stu.uea.ac.uk/cgi-bin/listinfo/alug See the website for instructions on digest or unsub!
-- Open source solutions at http://www.entora.co.uk/
ATTACHMENT part 2 application/x-pkcs7-signature name=smime.p7s
Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
alug, the Anglian Linux User Group list Send list replies to alug@stu.uea.ac.uk http://rabbit.stu.uea.ac.uk/cgi-bin/listinfo/alug See the website for instructions on digest or unsub!