From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 12:09:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 12:09:13 -0400 Received: from gap.cco.caltech.edu ([131.215.139.43]:26822 "EHLO gap.cco.caltech.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 12:09:01 -0400 To: mlist-linux-kernel@nntp-server.caltech.edu Path: wnoise From: wnoise@ugcs.caltech.edu (Aaron Denney) Newsgroups: mlist.linux.kernel Subject: Re: [OFFTOPIC] Secure network fileserving Linux <-> Linux Date: 7 Sep 2001 15:41:40 GMT Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Reply-To: wnoise@ugcs.caltech.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: barter.ugcs.caltech.edu User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.2 (Linux) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jamie Lokier wrote: > Jesse Pollard wrote: > > > Kerberos won't help either - The only parts of NFS that were kerberized > > > was the initial mount. Everything else uses filehandles/UDP. Encryption > > > doesn't help either - slows the entire network down too much. > > > > I disagree! First of all you can always use NFS over TCP, so much for > > "every thing else uses filehandles/UDP". (No that this improves security, > > but it can improve reliability!) > > It can improve security if you use NFS over TCP over SSL... > > That may be easier to configure than IPSec in some environments. take a look at sfs: http://www.fs.net/ -- Aaron Denney -><-