On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 02:54:39AM -0700, thomas@habets.se wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 02:09:11 +0100, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> said:
> > I don't think public CA's are not a good idea for complex setups since
> > they open the ability for an external party to create certificates that
> > are trusted by your server's CA, e.g., certificate authentication.
>
> I'm not arguing for, and in fact would argue against, public CA for
> client certs.
>
> So that's a separate issue.
>
> Note that mTLS prevents a MITM attack that exposes server data even if
> server cert is compromised or re-issued, so if the install is using
> client certs (with private CA) then the public CA for server matters
> much less.
>
> You can end up at the wrong server, yes, and provide data as INSERT,
> but can't steal or corrupt existing data.
>
> And you say for complex setups. Fair enough. But currently I'd say the
> default is wrong, and what should be default is not configurable.
Agreed, I think this needs much more discussion and documentation.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.