RFS is by far better that NFS!

[Brian V. Smith]

In article <218 at inpnms.UUCP>, logan at inpnms.UUCP (Jim Logan) writes:
< We all have 386's on our desks running RFS and have enjoyed
< having root access to our machines, but not on the server.  From
< what we have read, this is not possible under NFS.  Is this true?  
< 
< We are in the process of changing over to NFS from RFS under
< 386/ix in order to use the large disks on our MV 40000 running
< DG/UX.  
< 
< Is seems that the only way to prevent root access on the server
< under NFS is by appointing one person as the administrator.  It
< doesn't make much sense to have one person responsible for an
< entire network of 386's.  He would have to be responsible for
< changing the mode of files, killing processes, etc.  No one
< around here wants grunt work like this.   
< 
< Is this really a security issue, or are we misinformed?  Is
< there a solution?

Under Ultrix NFS, you can allow the superuser (root) from a client
machine access to a particular user-id (0, for example) on the server.
I quote (without permission) from exports(8nfs):

     -r=uid Map client superuser access to uid on the file sys-
            tem.  If you want to allow client superuser access to
            the file system with the same permissions as a local
            superuser, use -r=0. Use the -r=0 option only if you
            trust the superuser on the client system.  The
            default is -r=-2 which maps superuser to nobody.
            This limits the access to world readable files.

_____________________________________
Brian V. Smith    (bvsmith at lbl.gov)
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
I don't speak for LBL, these non-opinions are all mine.