Re: NFS Over Private Network
"Luc I. Suryo" <[email protected]> Wed, 24 Mar 2004 22:34:12 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.security.sun |
|---|---|
| Organization | Suryo Consultancy Inc. |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
well on A solaris 9 system, from man nfsd
-t device
Start a NFS daemon for the transport specified by the
given device. Equivalent of the NFSD_DEVICE parameter
in the nfs file.
so in /etc/init.d/nfs.server adjust the startup of the nfsd deamon only
on the interface you need.
And I would certainly advice to use TCP and NFS version 3 and then
make sure in the /etc/dfs/dfstab (/etc/export is not the file to be used
on a Solaris 2.x system) and btw you could use something like this
-o [email protected]/24
As far nfs/share, Solaris will not allow nfs mount unless the host
define is in /etc/hosts, so if you do want a more secure setting you may
*not* want to use the @xxxx method...
But check the man share_nfs..
>
> To what degree does this solution *protect* the share itself? Is there a
> way to tie the server share to a given interface, or better yet, bind nfsd
> itself to a specific interface? Call me paranoid, but I don't trust the
> builtin security mechanisms of nfs too far, especially considering the
> vulnerability rates of some Solaris rpc services in recent years.
>
> If nfsd cannot be specifically bound to a given interface (and hence not
> bound to others), then a private network between two machines will serve
> only to prevent man-in-the-middle types of attacks but still leaves the
> data vulnerable to any attack on the nfs server itself through the public
> interfaces.
to answer your question, it can be done in Solaris and as far rpc
issues, well the bottom line is very simple, security is not bound to a
OS, one must make sure that 1. the network is secure and 2. the Network
and system-administrator people need to make sure that both the systems
and the network at the highest possible path security level...
Security is not free.. it takes effort and 'pain' :)
btw: i checked Solaris 8, it does accept the -t option too...
does this help?
-ls