Re: [U] Re: Samba vs NFS

There is a way to use NFS over Windows.
Microsoft released the SFU pack (services for Unix) freely (!).
You can find there a NFS client and server.

If you are in a LAN you better use a W2k/XP/2k+3 server using Kerberos V.5
to be sure that nobody (until now) can retrieve the passwords using hash
tables on a rainbow crack.
If your server must be a Linux then use SAMBA its safer to configure.

Regards,

Santiago, from Argentina


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "alux" <alex.baeres@chello.at>
To: <focus-linux@securityfocus.com>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 8:33 PM
Subject: [U] Re: Samba vs NFS


> HI,
>
> neither the one nore the other is statet as "secure", but in case u want
to
> share with windows you have to use samba!!!
>
> from my point of few: you have to install one service thats insecure, why
> install a second one?
> installing nfs would give u more perfomance for unix-clients but adds
> securityholes and u have 2 keep more software uptodate!
>
> instead of nfs qhy not try afs? should be more secure...
>
> sorry for my bad english,
> best regards
>
> Am Donnerstag, 17. Februar 2005 23:42 schrieb Jennifer Fountain:
> > Hi all:
> > My company is looking at samba or NFS to allow our clients to access
> > shares from their Windows workstations and their linux ssh sessions.
> > From a security standpoint, which option is "more" secure?  Which option
> > is more vulnerable than the other?  Etc, etc ,etc.  I appeciate any
> > security information about NFS or samba that you may have.
> >
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> >
> > Jennifer Fountain
> > Systems Administrator
> > R&B Distribution
> > 3400 E Walnut Street
> > Colmar, PA  18915