From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <eulerto(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)br>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Why don't we allow DNS names in pg_hba.conf? |
Date: | 2006-01-03 18:21:52 |
Message-ID: | 18463.1136312512@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc writes:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 12:43:03PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not sure about the relative usefulness of this compared to the
>> forward-lookup case, nor whether it's riskier or less risky from a
>> spoofing point of view. But something to consider.
> I think it's riskier. I have my own PTR records, that I can make be
> whatever I wish without any authority verifying that my actions are
> proper.
Yeah, that occurred to me after a few moments' thought. We could do one
extra forward lookup to confirm that the reverse-lookup name maps back
to the IP address.
> It's not a big deal.
Depends on how many names you want to put into pg_hba.conf. I don't
offhand see a use-case for very many, but maybe there is one. Even
if there are a lot, they'd not be expensive to look up if there is
a local nameserver that is authoritative for those names ... which
I'd think would be the normal case. The more "outside" names you've
got in pg_hba.conf, the more open you are to spoofing.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2006-01-03 18:30:56 | Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and |
Previous Message | Tino Wildenhain | 2006-01-03 18:21:33 | Re: Why don't we allow DNS names in pg_hba.conf? |