Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 18:38:01 +0200 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: Kirk Strauser <kirk@strauser.com> Cc: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Remotely edit user disk quota Message-ID: <20090528183801.82b36bbb.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <200905280904.44025.kirk@strauser.com> References: <200905281030.n4SAUXdA046386@banyan.cs.ait.ac.th> <200905280847.12966.kirk@strauser.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0905281553001.60364@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <200905280904.44025.kirk@strauser.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 28 May 2009 09:04:43 -0500, Kirk Strauser <kirk@strauser.com> wrote: > Well, I can transfer 25MB/s between hosts on the LAN without my CPU ever > breaking 10% CPU usage. I'm of the opinion that most people don't need to > optimize for CPU in such cases when the security payoffs are so great. As Wojciech pointed out correctly before, security is only as good as the weakest point. Of course you can add security by using SSH, and it's definitely indicated when doing things via the Internet. As long as you are inside your own net, covered from the Internet, with only trustworthy machines inside it, you could even use telnet. Connecting systems by a security tunnel that already adds means of cryptography, and you consider this tunnel to be secure enough, the above situation applies. But you can always SSH inside a security tunnel, if you want. It just increases security. "The more the better." :-) At the point where this "the more" generates so much overhead that things are lagging, stalling or just work much too slow, or slower than they should, you can re-thing the situation. -- Polytropon >From Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090528183801.82b36bbb.freebsd>