According to Robert Johnston, > On Apr 9, 2005 3:49 PM, John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Saturday 09 April 2005 8:52 am, Tony Godshall wrote: > > > Perhaps cfs? It's encrypted nfs, and security is a concern > > > if on wireless even more than wired because it does not > > > require physical access. > > > > Oh for pete's sake..... > > Someone is worried about efficiency enough to think about > > abandoning Samba for some supposed slight advantage of nfs > > and you propose adding an encryption layer in there? > > > > Network security should be handled at the network level > > not the file system level. > > And if he's using 802.11x, he should at least have WEP, if not WPA, enabled
Well, soooooooorrryyy. Encryption does not have to be cpu-heavy... it's usually when it's combined with compression that you see any real issues, and there's no point (attempting) compression on video streams. WEP is not secure, in spite of its name. I'm not up on WPA, so I'll take your word on it. But no, I wasn't saying cfs is a better performer than samba, just that if you're going to go to nfs over wireless and you pgp-sign your e-mail... T
_______________________________________________ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
