>>>>> " " == Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> writes:
> I personally doubt that NFS would be the thing driving
> this. Judging by past performance, NFS security issues don't
> seem to bother people. I'd personally assume that the thing
> that would be important enough to people for vendors to add it
> is VPN or encrypted (local) disks.
As I said: one of the main motivations for NFSv4 is WAN support, and
in those environments, strong authentication is a must.
That said, the plan is to also prepare a 'null' authentication scheme
for RPCSEC_GSS (basically using RPCSEC_GSS as a wrapper for AUTH_UNIX)
so that the strong auth can be provided as a simple plugin in case its
inclusion in the kernel would not be acceptable.
Cheers,
Trond
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old
cell phone? Get a new here for FREE!
https://www.inphonic.com/r.asp?r=sourceforge1&refcode1=vs3390
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
> RPCSEC_GSS is not an argument for NFSv4...
yes.
But ACL support over the wire is an argument for V4 - and fine grained
authorization coupled to strong authentication makes for a flexible
security package.
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: Dice - The leading online job board
for high-tech professionals. Search and apply for tech jobs today!
http://seeker.dice.com/seeker.epl?rel_code=31
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs