Paul Slootman wrote:
> My suspicions would be NFS (but then I'm not objective :-)
I can totally share your point of view in a very subjective way.
> Do you mean that without the timeout option, it does work with this > scponly shell?
Yes, exactly.
> I would expect that "scponly" would imply not being able > to run any given command: only scp would be permitted.
I can attest that remains possible, at meast rsync is still able to launch another rsync process on the remote host, although I didn't look into how this exactly works, nor what the security consequences are. (improving security was the main reason to use scponly in this case.)
Serge van Ginderachter
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
