Re: TCP Wrappers

From: Lou Picciano <LouPicciano(at)comcast(dot)net>
To: Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com>
Cc: Timmy Siu <timmy(dot)siu(at)aol(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: TCP Wrappers
Date: 2019-10-09 22:50:20
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Yeah, why bother. Even ’native’ encryption/SSL in PG (were one to use it ‘natively’, as we do) is so good; adding yet another layer seems overkill…

Lou Picciano

> On Oct 9, 2019, at 6:39 PM, Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 12:56 PM Timmy Siu <timmy(dot)siu(at)aol(dot)com <mailto:timmy(dot)siu(at)aol(dot)com>> wrote:
> Dear all postgresql developers,
> I have tested postgres v11 against TCP Wrappers but it does not respond
> to TCP wrappers port blocking.
> May I suggest the community to have postgres to work with TCP wrappers.??
> Its security will be better.
> The last stable release of TCP Wrappers was a couple decades ago. It's deprecated in RHEL7 and removed in RHEL8. I'm not a PG core member or anything but rather doubt that's an area where the developers will want to expend effort.
> Cheers,
> Steve

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Smith, Peter 2019-10-09 22:52:41 RE: Proposal: Add more compile-time asserts to expose inconsistencies.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-10-09 22:46:38 Re: pg_dump compatibility level / use create view instead of create table/rule