CIFS or SFTP for data transfer between Windows and Linux/UNIX?

[Luis Toro]

We have historically used FTP, and now SFTP. A user wants to use CIFS to mount a Windows directory as a UNIX filesystem, so the files that need to be transferred will now be remotely mounted. Any drawbacks to this methodology?
Thanks

[Richard Whalen · Accepted solution]

CIFS may not provide any data privacy (encryption), which may have been your reason to moving to SFTP from FTP.

[Steven E. Protter]

Shalom,

SFTP is the best option.

Encrypted login and data stream.

If that data is not all that sensitive, CIFS might be a little faster because the data stream doesn't need to be encrypted.

CIFS/9000 is a good, solid system and it integrates will with Windows if that is a concern.

SEP

[Luis Toro]

Any bandwidth differences that may be of concern? I read somewhere that CIFS takes up more bandwidth.

Thanks

[Ivan Ferreira]

>>> SFTP is the best option.

I think that there is not absolute best option without knowing all relevant details.

The best option can vary depending of what do you want at most, performance, speed, technology limitations, etc.

For example, CIFS/SMB could be apropiate for a local network exchange. If you use kerberos, no sensitive information goes trough the network.

[Steven E. Protter]

Bandwith?

Its a LAN. I'd recommend against Samba/CIFS in an internet app environment. There are a lot of malicious samba scripts runing on the net.

In a LAN 100 BaseT or better bandwith on this stuff is not a problem, even if the total tranfer is several GB of data on a regular basis.

SEP

[Court Campbell]

I would do it. In fact I have in the past. I basically setup samba and winbind on the Linux box. I then joined the Linux box to the windows domain. I then setup the samba share so that only users in a certain windows group could access the share. I then mapped the share on the windows clients. I didn't really see any issues. Only the users in the windows group could access the share. I didn't really worry about people packet sniffing, etc. since it was a completely switched network. I mean it's not like your setting this up out on the internet. I hope that provided some sort of answer. After a reading my reply, it seems more like I am rambling.

[Luis Toro]

Thanks.
Court, just to clarify, this is for batch processing. We do use samba for Windows users who prefer the "drag and drop" to move files across unix/linux/windows servers (no unix accounts necessary for the windows users, another plus). But in batch, the file movement is automated by some process using an application userid. I believe that all things considered, sftp is the way to go. Given that there is no compelling advantage to change to CIFS, then why change?

[Court Campbell]

Sorry, I was thinking backwards. I had to re-read what you wanted to accomplish. I must admit that I cannot truly say which is better. I can only say I always prefer the method that requires less administrative work.

[Steven E. Protter]

Shalom,

SFTP or even better scp is much better for patch.

Public key exchange can be used to avoid authentication problems.

Samba in Linux, well the client has problems. I had some setups that were using samba and regular users were unable to create files on the samba mountpoints because root did the mount. Permissions were root and users could not create files. RH insisted it was not a problem, but HP-UX's cifsclient or smbclient did not display this behavior

Then I was faced with having to have each user do his or her own mount.

Bottom line is you can run both at the same time and not worry at all. But plan your batch around an scp and public key exchange infrastructure and save yourself some headaches.

SEP