[clug] Super Dumb question. Network filesystems... (linux Digest, Vol 88, Issue 39, Message 1)
mgoodhew at gmail.com
Tue Apr 27 18:32:09 MDT 2010
> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 07:50:04 +1000
> From: steve jenkin <sjenkin at canb.auug.org.au>
> Message-ID: <4BD75C0C.5020909 at canb.auug.org.au>
> I was telling a mate about this thread yesterday when The Blindingly
> Obvious stuck me.
> You want 'cipher-none' and really zippy *and* easy transfers - in an
> environment where you don't care about security?
> Already there....
> 'rsh' & 'rcp' - the original BSD 'r' (remote) commands.
Well, that's what my last sentance covering "general improvement
over RSH, etc." was about. On occasion in a former job I had a desire
to set-up multiplexed connections and "sshfs withouth the ssh". This
was all on an "inside" network doing ad-hoc things and wishing to drop
Given that it's pretty-much on the low-end of the "nice to have
list" and the potential for absent-minded toe-detachment from an
easily-accessible "no encryption" mode for SSH, the status quo's
probably for the best.
> Before the ramble, a positive suggestion for a composite rsh/ssh solution:
> - ya gotta be *really* sure this is what you want to do...
a) Seems nauseatingly complicated, b) Can't see this easily mounted
as a filesystem
> Nothing nicer for an attacker than "Fat, Dumb and Happy" guys up the
I object: I'm not happy all the time.
> It comes down to your individual level of paranoia and your attitude to
> Risk vs Cost ($$, time, complexity, ...).
Executive Computer Scientist
More information about the linux