| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| 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>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc, Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
| Subject: | Re: TODO: GNU TLS |
| Date: | 2006-12-30 16:14:16 |
| Message-ID: | 1167495256.1268.0.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > This would be the big feature I think is missing from our current SSL
> > support. I don't think it'd be terribly difficult to support with
> > either library (I think most of the work would be on the PG user auth
> > side, which would be useable by either).
>
> Wouldn't it be a lot more logical to support authentication with X.509
> certificates rather than PGP keys?
The use of PGP in this manner is silly imo. X.509 would certainly be
interesting.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Cave-Ayland | 2006-12-30 16:56:15 | Re: WITH support |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2006-12-30 15:38:15 | Re: TODO: GNU TLS |