On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Jeremy Allison <j...@samba.org> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 09:20:54AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >> >> Samba is a very helpful implementation of CIFS, and I congratulate its >> authors. But CIFS was *not* built for data security. Encrypting such >> traffic would be an amazing performance hit on the server side. If you >> need secure data transfer, and do not need the kind of live sharing >> that CIFS or UNIX protocols like NFS provide, I'd urge you to use >> "git" for SSH based access to a central repository with local editing >> and full source control features. It's still a performance hit over >> direct file sharing, but it works well for interrupted connections to >> the primary document source, and I really like it for laptop or remote >> data center operation. > > Ahem. We *do* implement encryption on the CIFS stream in > the Samba server. Works well with smbclient -e option. > All it needs is for the kernel client to implement it. > > It's not such a bad hit on the server side of things :-). > > Jeremy. >
Thank you, yes, I saw those notes from Volker and simo. This is what I get for working professionally with old releases. I also noticed that it relies on Samba 3.2 or later on both ends, and so isn't compatible with Windows servers or clients or older clients. Now if I can just shoot all the old versions in use out there. ;'-) -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
