Archives
Archives
| From: | Vaeth <vaeth@××××××××××××××××××××××××.de> |
|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-user@l.g.o |
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-user] Is there a way to automate rsync of updated portage tree across multiple boxes without each having to pull it down from a gentoo mirror |
| Date: | Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:29:53 |
| Message-Id: | Pine.LNX.4.64.0809161726340.19084@wmax001.mathematik.uni-wuerzburg.de |
| 1 | On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 | |
| 3 | > On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:49:36 +0200 (CEST), Vaeth wrote: |
| 4 | > |
| 5 | > > It is always better to have a port not open than to rely on a router |
| 6 | > > to "close" it apparently. |
| 7 | > |
| 8 | > If you are using NAT on the router, you have to explicitly forward that |
| 9 | > port somewhere for it to work. [...] |
| 10 | |
| 11 | Except that this is not completely true: See some of the many articles |
| 12 | in the net which explain why NAT is not a security feature. A quick google |
| 13 | search gave e.g. http://www.nexusuk.org/articles/2005/03/12/nat_security/ |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-user] Is there a way to automate rsync of updated portage tree across multiple boxes without each having to pull it down from a gentoo mirror | Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> |