Re: Samba vs NFS
From: Luiz Felipe (luiz_at_grupocarvalho.com.br)
Date: 02/22/05
- Previous message: Ryan Nowakowski: "Re: Samba vs NFS"
- In reply to: Jennifer Fountain: "Samba vs NFS"
- Next in thread: Thiago Lima : "RES: Samba vs NFS"
- Reply: Thiago Lima : "RES: Samba vs NFS"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:03:15 -0300 To: Jennifer Fountain <jfountain@rbinc.com>
Hi Jennifer,
With NFS, the authentication is performed just by IP address. This
authentication my may be forged more easily than SMB, which is done by
login/pass. At this point, SMB is more secure.
If is not a hard work for you, use a ssh tunnel from clients to server
using SMB.
I think it is a quite more secure than pure SMB.
Regards,
Luiz Felipe de souza Gomes - luizfox
Network Administrator
Jennifer Fountain wrote:
>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
>
>
>.
>
>
>
- Previous message: Ryan Nowakowski: "Re: Samba vs NFS"
- In reply to: Jennifer Fountain: "Samba vs NFS"
- Next in thread: Thiago Lima : "RES: Samba vs NFS"
- Reply: Thiago Lima : "RES: Samba vs NFS"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
