Re: PosgreSQL Security Architecture
От | Albe Laurenz |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PosgreSQL Security Architecture |
Дата | |
Msg-id | A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B537F9766@ntex2010i.host.magwien.gv.at обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PosgreSQL Security Architecture (John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: PosgreSQL Security Architecture
|
Список | pgsql-general |
John R Pierce wrote: > On 2/12/2016 5:20 AM, Lesley Kimmel wrote: >> Thanks for the reply Laurenz. Of course the first thing that I thought >> of to prevent man-in-the-middle was SSL. However, I also like to try >> to address the issue in a way that seems to get at what they are >> intending. It seemed to me that they wanted to do some configuration >> within the database related to session IDs. > > when the connection is broken, the process exits and the session ceases > to exist. there are no 'session IDs' to speak of (they are process > IDs instead, but a new process mandates new authentication, there's no > residual authorizations associated with a PID). I might be misunderstanding, but is there any connection to a man-in-the-middle attack? Without SSL, anybody who can tap into the TCP communication can inject SQL statements. No session ID is required. Yours, Laurenz Albe
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: