Re: Samba vs NFS

From: alux (alex.baeres_at_chello.at)
Date: 02/22/05

  • Next message: Kyle Wheeler: "Re: Samba vs NFS"
    To: focus-linux@securityfocus.com
    Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:33:12 +0100
    
    

    HI,

    neither the one nore the other is statet as "secure", but in case u want to
    share with windows you have to use samba!!!

    from my point of few: you have to install one service thats insecure, why
    install a second one?
    installing nfs would give u more perfomance for unix-clients but adds
    securityholes and u have 2 keep more software uptodate!

    instead of nfs qhy not try afs? should be more secure...

    sorry for my bad english,
    best regards

    Am Donnerstag, 17. Februar 2005 23:42 schrieb Jennifer Fountain:
    > Hi all:
    > My company is looking at samba or NFS to allow our clients to access
    > shares from their Windows workstations and their linux ssh sessions.
    > From a security standpoint, which option is "more" secure? Which option
    > is more vulnerable than the other? Etc, etc ,etc. I appeciate any
    > security information about NFS or samba that you may have.
    >
    >
    > Kind Regards,
    >
    > Jennifer Fountain
    > Systems Administrator
    > R&B Distribution
    > 3400 E Walnut Street
    > Colmar, PA 18915


  • Next message: Kyle Wheeler: "Re: Samba vs NFS"