Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} backups... still backups....

[Neil Bothwick]

On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 06:31:38 -0700, Grant wrote:

> > There is no sacrifice, you are running rsync as root on the client
> > either way. Alternatively, you could run rsyncd on the client, which
> > avoids the need for the server to be able to run an SSH session.
>
> I think the sacrifice is that with the backuppc method, if someone
> breaks into the backup server they will have read(/write) access to
> the clients.  The method I'm describing requires more management if
> you have a lot of machines, but it doesn't have the aforementioned
> vulnerability.
>
> The rsyncd option is interesting.  If you don't want to restore
> directly onto the client, there are no SSH keys involved at all?

Not even then, the server talks to the client in the same way for
restores as it does for backups, so it would still use rsyncd if you
wanted it to.

> >> Obviously the backup server has to be able to make outbound
> >> connections in order to pull so I think you're saying it could drop
> >> inbound connections, but then how could you talk to it?  Do you mean
> >> a local backup server?
> >
> > Yes, you talk to the server over the LAN, or a VPN. There need be no
> > way of connecting to it from outside of your LAN.
>
> To me it seems presumptuous to be sure a particular machine will never
> be infiltrated to the degree that you're OK with such an infiltration
> giving read(/write) access on every client to the infiltrator.

I don't think it too unreasonable to assume that a machine with no ports
exposed to the Internet will not be compromised from the Internet.
Whereas a push approach requires that the server have open ports.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Just when you got it all figured out:  An UPGRADE!