Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 219143
Why does avahi export an sftp service for all machines?
Last modified: 2018-10-27 10:28:52 EDT
Why does avahi (via /etc/avahi/services/sftp-ssh.service) export an sftp service on *all* machines by default. This means that browsing the network for shares in e.g. nautilus will display all the machines on the local network. In almost all cases this is not what you want.
Hmm, Why isn't this behaviour what you want? I think it makes a lot of sense to be able to browse for all machines on the local LAN which you can access via sftp.
Say you have an office with 100 desktop machines, and a few servers, some that have often uses sftp shares. Now, the desktop machines run sshd to allow remote maintainance (if e.g. someone calls helpdesk). However, exporting all these as sftp shares makes lan browsing for sftp shares practically useless. Its impossible to find the important/interesting shares. I *specifically* asked the mDNS people for a separate _sftp type (in addition to the _ssh one) in order to not run into situations like this. (And it was added.)
I guess you convinced me. Any objections if I install ssh.sftp by default, then?
oops! That should read: "Any objections if I install ssh.service" by default, then?" I also forgot to mention that I am going to remove ssh-sftp.service from the next package version.
ssh.service seems better suited for a default. Its not showing up much in ordinary peoples UIs, and its mainly what ssh installs on desktops will be used for.
This has been fixed a while back now.
This bug was marked against RHEL5, and not fedora(rawhide) , and thus re-opening it. -- ritz
I'd like to commit a fix for this. But cannot, because of this: *** Commit denied *** Current RHEL-5 checkin policy requires: (rhel-5.5.0 == + or (rhel-5.5.0 == ? and pm_ack == +)) Not sure what's missing here...
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2010-0034.html