On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 11:50:00AM +1200, Jason Greenwood wrote:
> No offense but trust me, Chris S. knows a LOT about Linux/Unix. He is
> well aware of the filesystems and permission structures of Unix systems
> (he has taught the Linux+ course). I believe he was referring to the
> additional restrictions one can put in the samba.conf file to help
> secure your Samba server, over and above the usual Linux file permission
> structure.
Trust me, I've not taken offence, but successfully prompted the answers that
you kindly just gave.
I will admit, yes, NFS leaves a lot to be desired, in the lands of secure
filesystem access. I still dont think that using SMB answers the need for a
'secure' network FS. Especially when the protocol has (as far as I am aware)
no support for the typical Unix user/group/other octal permissions.
Please, prove me wrong if I am..
Don't get me wrong, SMB is 'perfect', for lack of a better word, as a Windows
networking FS.
Also, just because you've seen Chris teach a course, don't presume he's the
only one who know's a "LOT" about Linux/Unix. :)
Mike.
--
Mike Beattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZL4TXK, IRLP Node 6184
The first 90% of the code in a project takes 90% of the time.
The next 10% of the code will take another 90% of the time.
-- J. S. Labuschagne
