I assume that there is no snooping within the network.... my reasoning goes as follows: In the networks I setup, the "physical" security is comparatively lax (i.e. it's quite easy to break into the offices).
So I felt it was not worth the effort to secure in the internal network when anyone can walk up to the server and build the disk out! For me, anybody with physical access to the office does not need to be protected against active attacks. (Like snooping, burning CD's with sensitive data, walking out with physical disks). Acidental (errors like "format c:", are another matter)... Jerry On Sun, 2004-03-21 at 12:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If your router is not configured to forward connections into your LAN, or is > configured to block the necessary ports then there is no need to set AuthHosts, but > there is no harm is doing so. As to setting up SSH on your LAN, or there a risk > that a user on your LAN will conduct a bit of hacking? > > At 05:14 21/03/2004, Gary Fritz wrote: > >I just installed VNC on several systems and, remarkably, it > >worked quite well with almost no twiddling. > > > >I changed the AuthHosts value to permit only hosts on my local > >LAN to connect. (I.e. set it to "-:+192.168".) I assume this > >will prevent ALL connections from any outside hosts. > > > >Question: All hosts on the LAN are behind a router. In this > >case, is it necessary to go through the pain of setting up SSH? > >Or can I safely assume that all traffic between server & clients > >will stay behind the router, so there's no way an unfriendly > >could snoop them? > > > >Gary > _______________________________________________ > VNC-List mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To remove yourself from the list visit: > http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list _______________________________________________ VNC-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To remove yourself from the list visit: http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
