| 1 |
Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:29:59 +0200 (CEST), Vaeth wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > > > What wrong with running an rsync |
| 6 |
> > > > server with a suitable "host allow" in the config? [...] |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > > That is indeed the preferred way |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > It is much more dangerous than the ssh approach [...] |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Leaving aside the difficulties of faking a LAN IP from the public side |
| 13 |
> of the router, or even the fact that the router may have the rsync ports |
| 14 |
> closed, what is so secret about the contents of the portage tree? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
It is always better to have a port not open than to rely on a router |
| 17 |
to "close" it apparently. |
| 18 |
Moreover, who can guarantee you that the portage tree is the only thing |
| 19 |
which is possible to see with a faked IP: Every program might have |
| 20 |
vulnerabilities, so the less you provide to the outside world |
| 21 |
(even if visible only through IP faking) the more secure you are. |
| 22 |
Probably, sshd is needed anyway, so if possible this should be the only |
| 23 |
thing potentially visible from the outside. |
Archives