From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Aug 28 15:14:26 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from freeway.dcfinc.com (cx74889-a.phnx3.az.home.com [24.1.193.157]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F165637B424 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 15:14:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from chad@localhost) by freeway.dcfinc.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA20456; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 15:14:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from chad) From: "Chad R. Larson" Message-Id: <200008282214.PAA20456@freeway.dcfinc.com> Subject: Re: NFS client ignores "read-only" attribute on file In-Reply-To: <20000828095852.L1209@fw.wintelcom.net> from Alfred Perlstein at "Aug 28, 0 09:58:52 am" To: bright@wintelcom.net (Alfred Perlstein) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 15:14:17 -0700 (MST) Cc: dhesi@rahul.net, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Reply-To: chad@DCFinc.com Organization: DCF, Inc. X-O/S: FreeBSD 2.2.8-STABLE X-Unexpected: The Spanish Inquisition X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL40 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG As I recall, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * Rahul Dhesi [000828 09:52] wrote: >> From a philosphical perspective, I'm not sure that the above is >> correct. NFS was designed to work properly only with trusted clients >> that are under the same administrative control as the NFS server. > > That makes about as much sense as making read-only mounts and maproot > into "suggestions" for the clients instead of enforced on the server. > > Basically, you're wrong. He didn't say he agreed with the philosophy, he was just pointing out what the designers were thinking at the time. Usta be we didn't need firewalls, either. -crl -- Chad R. Larson (CRL15) 602-953-1392 Brother, can you paradigm? chad@dcfinc.com chad@larsons.org larson1@home.net DCF, Inc. - 14623 North 49th Place, Scottsdale, Arizona 85254-2207 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message