drechsau wrote:Why do you need remote shell access?
What do you hope to accomplish with remote shell access?
How does having remote shell access improve your workflow?
How does having remote shell access minimize your downtime?
How does having remote shell access save you time?
In one sentence, rsync over ssh. Rsync, while great at what it does, is not secure. Login information and files are sent "in the clear" over the network. In a local network this is usually fine, especially with most networks consisting of switches instead of hubs which isolate the data instead of broadcasting it to everyone on the network. But for remote backups over the internet, sending any personal information over an unencrypted channel is not a good idea. I use this all the time with my current white box backup storage machine. But the space is limited, computer is really weak, etc.
I am not a current owner of a readynas as the lack of
official ssh support is a big blocker for me, even though it wouldn't be too hard for me to hack it and gain ssh access. If I understand the current system, you could do an ssh tunnel from another machine. For example my firewall is a custom white box linux install. I could run something like the following on the remote computer:
- Code: Select all
ssh -L 8873:192.168.0.10:873 username@myfirewall.example.com
and then do an rsync to localhost at port 8873 and it would have a secure tunnel from the remote location to local network and then would be unencrypted to ReadyNAS. While that works, it makes things far more complicated than in should. It also means the remote machine has to initiate the connection, which isn't ideal. It would be greater if the ReadyNAS itself initiates the ssh connection.
Another reason, I wouldn't want to open the web admin to the internet, even if ssl, again for security. If I need to gain quick access, it would be great to open up a quick ssh connection.
I also would want to run hamachi on this to create a secure vpn tunnel, this would allow me to remotely access samba shares securely since that is another insecure protocol. If there's ssh access it would at least be possible to
try and get it running.
Obviously this is all stuff that a person experienced with linux would do, to a basic user this may all sound like gibberish. It would obviously void any support unless a user completely reflashed the os to the default. I kinda feel that is the reason why ssh support is still "under development." Those that know enough about linux and understand the responsibilities of having an ssh shell can figure out in an afternoon how to get access.
[/list]
but I think we've always come through, right 
Anyway, we're hard at work coming up with a RAIDiator 4 beta that will contain ssh support. Unfortunately, this release is full of a bunch of other stuff that I won't mention yet, so we're having to wait for everything to be fully beta functional. There are also some re-designs in several layers taking place, so we're trying to be very careful we're not going to adversely affect data, as unfortunately once you update to RAIDiator 4, you won't be able to go back.
