On Fri, 2003-07-18 at 11:22, Cory Petkovsek wrote: > What is not correct? > Are you refuting that accessing a samba share across the internet is > insecure? Or are you saying my interpretation of your setup is not > correct.
Your interpretation of my setup is not correct. I mean, how does one do SMB communications through the mail client? That's a dialog box I haven't seen yet :-). It's through IMAP. Trust me. > You had said the system may be one system and it may not have > a firewall. Logic leads us to believe that samba would be on a machine > plugged directly in to the internet. No, it's a smbmount pointing to an NT server on the Linux box. The files themselves are on another machin on the internal subnet. See to my comment about adding a second NIC with routing to be doubly secure. > Without a firewall, this is not > secure. Without a firewall, how can you require all communications to > occur through port 143? Reject the traffic with IP tables. Better to have a firewall. > > Also port 143 is for imap without ssl, which means plain text passwords > having access to not only an imap server but also a file server through > imap and is even less secure with greater liability than using samba. Pardon me. IMAPS, port 993. My mistake. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- | Cooper Stevenson | Em: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Open Source Consultant | Ph: 541.924.9434 | -------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
