From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Henry B(dot) Hotz" <hbhotz(at)oxy(dot)edu>, sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Preliminary GSSAPI Patches |
Date: | 2007-06-23 12:53:03 |
Message-ID: | 467D17AF.5020500@hagander.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
>> * Henry B. Hotz (hbhotz(at)oxy(dot)edu) wrote:
>>> On Jun 22, 2007, at 9:56 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>>> Most likely it's just checking the keytab to find a principal with the
>>>> same name as the one presented from the client. Since one is
>>>> present, it
>>>> loads it up automatically, and verifies against it.
>>> Bingo!
>>>
>>> The server uses the keytab to decrypt the token provided by the
>>> client. By using the GSS_C_NO_CREDENTIAL arg on the server anything
>>> put in the keytab is OK. (The server doesn't need to authenticate
>>> itself to Kerberos, it just accepts authentication. Mutual
>>> authentication is done using the same keys.) The documentation needs
>>> to reflect that.
>> I agree there's some disconnect there between the documentation and the
>> apparent implementation but I'm not sure I'm in favor of changing the
>> documentation on this one. Personally, I'd rather it return an error if
>> someone tries to use GSS_C_NO_CREDENTIAL when accepting a context than
>> to just be happy using anything in the keytab.
>
> How about doing both, then? Set the principal name if it's specified in
> the config file. If it's explicitly set to an empty string, use
> GSS_C_NO_CREDENTIAL. Seems straightforward enough to me, and shouldn't
> be hard to implement.
Here's an updated patch that does this.
//Magnus
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
gssapi.patch | text/x-patch | 29.6 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-06-24 09:23:59 | Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, take 3 |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2007-06-23 08:59:27 | Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, take 3 |