| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, lionel(at)mamane(dot)lu |
| Subject: | Re: LibreOffice driver 2: MIT Kerberos vs Microsoft Kerberos |
| Date: | 2011-12-13 22:09:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20111213220901.GT24234@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Greg Smith (greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> This answers Lionel's question, but I'm curious for a more user
> impact opinion from you. Given that pgAdmin III has given up on MIT
> KRB5, would you feel doing the same is appropriate for LibreOffice
> too? It sounds like they really shouldn't take on either the build
> cruft or the potential security issues of pulling that in at this
> point.
Yes, I'd encourage LibreOffice to drop MIT "Kerberos for Windows" from
their configure/install of libpq on Windows. It's just too painful and
evil and, today, it might almost be better to just use the built-in
Windows stuff (even on XP with the crappy encryption..) than deal with
the headaches and known security flaws in the ancient MIT KfW build.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Shulgin | 2011-12-13 22:45:08 | Re: WIP: URI connection string support for libpq |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2011-12-13 21:55:14 | Re: Configuration include directory |