From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Spoofing as the postmaster |
Date: | 2007-12-29 18:00:20 |
Message-ID: | 200712291800.lBTI0Ke10312@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 12:40:24PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> We already *do* allow the DBA to choose this, no? If you put the root
> >> certificate on the client, it *will* verify the server cert, and it
> >> *will* refuse to connect to a server that can't present a trusted root cert.
> >
> > I think Tom's point is that we don't allow this for connections over a
> > Unix Domain socket. And thus we should remove the asymmetry so the
> > verification can work for them also.
>
> If that's where we still are, then I'm all for that provided it doesn't
> add a whole lot of complexity, as I think I said before. I thought we
> were now talking general SSL connections. That could be where I lost the
> thread :-)
I think the user-visible impact of that addition would be to add
'localssl' in pg_hba.conf. It would be nice if we had made SSL control
separate from the connection type, and perhaps we will explore that in
8.4. (None of this is 8.3, I believe.)
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-12-29 18:23:26 | Re: Spoofing as the postmaster |
Previous Message | Mark Mielke | 2007-12-29 17:34:59 | Re: Spoofing as the postmaster |