Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 01:24:52 +1000 From: Norberto Meijome <freebsd@meijome.net> To: nospam@mgedv.net Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: encrypted file sharing bsd<-->winxp/2k3 Message-ID: <434BD944.6070204@meijome.net> In-Reply-To: <20051011135238.E087E186800@mgedv.at> References: <20051011135238.E087E186800@mgedv.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
mdff wrote: >>>>VPN is probably your choice. Check out OpenVPN >>>>(http://openvpn.net/) for a portable and relatively >>>>easy-to-setup solution. >>> >>> >>>thx for the hint, but we don't want VPN/tunnels/ipsec >>>solutions for this. >> >>would you mind explaining why not? >> >>(I was going ot suggest SSH forwarding and then your protocol >>of choice, >>but that is a tunnel ). >> > > because one user being authenticated on the windows client > should be able to connect to another network share without > needing to always startup a ipsec-connection, I _think_ that with windows all you have to do is tell the domain to run on ipsec, and once you have the certs installed it's all ready to be used. > authenticate > and re-map the drive (necessary because sometimes windows > does not re-map the drive automatically). still beats me why people insist in using drive letters. a) as you say, when or why they work or dont (their mapping i mean) is another of MS voodoo things; b) why restrict yourself to so few connections ; c) using \\servername\share (or domainanme\\share\ in AD) would be better Shares published via AD is much better - it just works. browse to the server. Anyway, i digress :) > technically the solution would fit, but the admin overhead > would be too much. > understood :) webdav/ssl sounds like a good idea, as per Andrew Gould's email. Beto
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?434BD944.6070204>