From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
Cc: | Jacob Champion <pchampion(at)vmware(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Allow matching whole DN from a client certificate |
Date: | 2021-01-29 13:59:01 |
Message-ID: | ff2d915e-fe47-3f06-d72f-e0807871cf16@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/29/21 8:18 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 28 Jan 2021, at 23:10, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>> On 1/28/21 11:39 AM, Jacob Champion wrote:
>>> Unfortunately I don't really know what that solution should look like.
>>> A DSL for filtering on RDNs would be a lot of work, but it could
>>> potentially allow LDAP to be mapped through pg_ident as well
>> In the end it will be up to users to come up with expressions that meet
>> their usage. Yes they could get it wrong, but then they can get so many
>> things wrong ;-)
> My main concern with this isn't that it's easy to get it wrong, but that it may
> end up being hard to get it right (with false positives in the auth path as a
> result). Right now I'm not sure where it leans.
>
> Maybe it will be easier to judge the proposal when the documentation has been
> updated warnings for the potential pitfalls?
>
Feel free to make suggestions for wording :-)
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Yugo NAGATA | 2021-01-29 14:06:59 | Re: Is Recovery actually paused? |
Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2021-01-29 13:51:03 | Re: Phrase search vs. multi-lexeme tokens |