REPEAT: hasn't anyone used smbclient linux->linux?
unixach at ez-poa.com.br
Wed Oct 20 20:54:45 GMT 1999
Em qua, 20 out 1999, Paul L. Lussier escreveu:
> In a message dated: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 17:40:49 -0200
> Andreas Hasenack said:
> >NFS's authentication is weak (it's host based). With Samba you get also user
> >authentication. With pam_smb you could even replace N[IY]S[+] for the user
> >auth part.
> True, but the basic Unix permissions are user *and* group based. Proper
> configuration of these, combined with the host based auth make NFS a better
> choice IMO than SMB. In addition, with NFS and netgroups, you can restrict a
> user access to anything based on both the username *and* the host combined,
> which smb can't do.
I think I agree with you. I just don't like the concept that, with the root
password of a *client* machine, one can su to any local user and thus
invalidate the user authentication part. OK, one shouldn't give the root
password away, but I don't like this concept: a client machine being able to
look at any file (but root owned ones) on a *server* machine.
More information about the samba