Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: What's going on with pgfoundry?

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
Cc: Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: What's going on with pgfoundry?
Date: 2008-11-26 22:12:42
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 18:06 -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> > Since were chatting :P. My vote would be to move everything back to port
> > 22 and force key based auth only.
> How does that work?  Does that kill the script kiddies in their tracks?  I'm 
> guessing so, but had never thought to try it ...

Well they can still talk to the port of course but its irrelevant
because unless they have an ssh key, they aren't getting in. Period.

> How would someone upload their key if they don't have access?  Some sort of web 
> interface?  One wouldn't want to throw extra admin overhead if it can be 
> avoided ...

See other comment on this.

Joshua D. Drake

   Consulting, Development, Support, Training
   503-667-4564 -
   The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2008-11-26 22:14:19
Subject: Re: WIP: default values for function parameters
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2008-11-26 22:11:50
Subject: Re: What's going on with pgfoundry?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group