On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 07:24:36 -0700, Grant said:
I'm currently pushing backups from each system to a central backup
server via rdiff-backup. However, I realized that push backups are
not safe because if one of the systems is compromised, the infiltrator
could delete all of that system's
For Bruno: Please stop sending email posts to this list. This
is a Bacula list not a list for promoting Bareos.
For Bacula users: Please be aware that Bruno Friedmann is
not a friend of Bacula. He is a Bareos reseller in Switzerland
and has a long standing relationship with DassIT, which is
the
I'm currently pushing backups from each system to a central backup
server via rdiff-backup. However, I realized that push backups are
not safe because if one of the systems is compromised, the infiltrator
could delete all of that system's backups with a command like this:
rdiff-backup
Zitat von Grant emailgr...@gmail.com:
I'm currently pushing backups from each system to a central backup
server via rdiff-backup. However, I realized that push backups are
not safe because if one of the systems is compromised, the infiltrator
could delete all of that system's backups with a
Bacula does have root read (and write) privileges on every backed-up system,
but you can encrypt the backups before sending them to the central server.
Bacula can also sign the backups, so the client can verify that a restore
doesn't contain modified data. You still have to keep the
Le 2013-07-01 13:07, Martin Simmons a écrit :
Bacula does have root read (and write) privileges on every backed-up
system,
but you can encrypt the backups before sending them to the central
server.
Bacula can also sign the backups, so the client can verify that a
restore
doesn't contain
On 07/01/13 09:11, Grant wrote:
Bacula does have root read (and write) privileges on every backed-up
system,
but you can encrypt the backups before sending them to the central server.
Bacula can also sign the backups, so the client can verify that a restore
doesn't contain modified data.
On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 15:25:23 +0200, Jérôme Blion said:
Le 2013-07-01 13:07, Martin Simmons a écrit :
Bacula does have root read (and write) privileges on every backed-up
system,
but you can encrypt the backups before sending them to the central
server.
Bacula can also sign the
Le 2013-07-01 15:53, Martin Simmons a écrit :
On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 15:25:23 +0200, Jérôme Blion said:
Le 2013-07-01 13:07, Martin Simmons a écrit :
Bacula does have root read (and write) privileges on every backed-up
system,
but you can encrypt the backups before sending them to the central
On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 16:25:06 +0200, Jérôme Blion said:
Le 2013-07-01 15:53, Martin Simmons a écrit :
On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 15:25:23 +0200, Jérôme Blion said:
Le 2013-07-01 13:07, Martin Simmons a écrit :
Bacula does have root read (and write) privileges on every backed-up
system,
On 7/1/2013 9:11 AM, Grant wrote:
Bacula does have root read (and write) privileges on every backed-up
system,
but you can encrypt the backups before sending them to the central server.
Bacula can also sign the backups, so the client can verify that a restore
doesn't contain modified data.
Le 2013-07-01 17:07, Martin Simmons a écrit :
It can be secured via ACL too.
You can manage what a client has access to.
And so, ensure no critical data pieces can be stolen through that
way.
Yes, that works as long as the Director is secure -- otherwise the
attacker
can just write
Hello,
This is an interesting subject and what everyone says is correct.
I have been thinking over the past few months about how to
improve security, and although we already have one way that
the FD can drop permissions to become a backup only FD,
I have been thinking about two additions:
1. A
On Monday 01 July 2013 13.51:58 you wrote:
For Bacula users: Please be aware that Bruno Friedmann is
not a friend of Bacula.
Just to be clear on that, then how did you explain the fact that I maintain
the bacula community edition for openSUSE related, on the open build service
?
Couldn't be
14 matches
Mail list logo
