4 ms·
you sound so wise and produce excellent reference, but in the next breath you show NFS in use? signed -confused
by mistrial9 8mo ago
you sound so wise and produce excellent reference, but in the next breath you show NFS in use?
signed -confused
- gchamonlive 8mo agoWhy is it so self-evident that NFS is bad?
- shakna 8mo agoSecurity is optional in NFS 4, and practically non-existent before. The standard Linux NFS client does not implement security. > The Linux NFS client does not yet support certain optional features of the NFS version 4 protocol, such as security negotiation, server referrals, and named attributes. > man 5 nfs
- gchamonlive 8mo agoThat only means that if you need these kinds of security guarantees you need to look for another solution. A bad software would be one that advertises security but in practice the implementation would be full of holes, for instance with Microsoft Active Directory: https://arstechnica.com/security/2025/12/microsoft-will-finally-kill-obsolete-cipher-that-has-wreaked-decades-of-havoc/ https://arstechnica.com/security/2025/12/microsoft-will-fina...
- eikenberry 8mo agoWhat would you use for remote mounting filesystems? I don't know of any that are simply superior (w/o caveats/tradeoffs).
- chasil 8mo agoI upvoted you, and yes, cleartext NFS is a concern. I had it wrapped in stunnel TLS, but I ripped that out recently as I am retiring and the new staff is simply not capable of maintaining that configuration. My users were yelling, and the patch to tinysshd to omit all permissions checks silenced the complaints. No, it's not pretty.