[Freedombox-discuss] Minimal spec for NAS?
hartmans at debian.org
Thu Jun 2 18:16:04 UTC 2011
>>>>> "Tony" == Tony Godshall <togo at of.net> writes:
Tony> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:56 PM, James Vasile <james at hackervisions.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 19:36:01 +0100, Lars Wirzenius <liw at liw.fi> wrote:
>> One of the things in the "Is/is not" list for the FreedomBox was
>>> that it should act as a file server. This is a good thing to
>>> start with, I think, since it does not require dealing with
>>> NATs, firewalls, and such, just doing stuff in the local LAN.
>>> What would be the _minimal_ spec for the _first_ generation of
>>> FBX-NAS? Something like the following, perhaps:
>>> I create a USB memory stick with FreedomBox, and boot
>>> an old laptop off the stick. The laptop is now a NAS
>>> server. I can format a disk on another computer
>>> (ext4, possibly over LVM), and then plug it into the
>>> FreedomBox, which automatically mounts it and shares
>>> it over the network.
>>> I emphasize that this should be _minimal_ and _initial_, because
>>> otherwise things will get too complicated too fast, and nothing
>>> will happen. It's better to start with the simplest possible
>>> thing that can be made to work, and grow the system later on.
>>> * all users see all files * uses SMB for maximal client
>>> compatibility, and sftp over ssh for maximal security *
>>> comes preconfigured with a user with a known password *
>>> management via command line tools, login via ssh
>>> The next iteration should probably add a web based management
>>> tool, but there are a lot of open questions of how that should
>>> work, so I think it would be good to avoid that initially, in
>>> the name of getting something to work (and people to build on).
>>> Detection of a USB disk would happen via udev, I guess, or
>>> possibly over dbus, after which it gets mounted under /media
>>> (just like on a desktop system). After that, adding it to Samba
>>> should be easy enough. We could even have Samba just share
>>> everything in /media, for utmost simplicity, to start with.
>>> What do you all think?
>> I quite like the plan of starting with a small, simple thing and
>> slowly increasing features.
Tony> But does this fit with the basic principle of being secure and
Tony> encrypted by default?
I'm all for being secure.
I'm all for encryption too when it serves a purpose.
However, I'm not sure what you are encrypting where and to protect from
More information about the Freedombox-discuss