pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Secure connections writeup - please review

To: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Secure connections writeup - please review
From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 09:34:38 -0500
Cc: PCP <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1649221790.16129979.1359956800185.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <y0m7gmsawtz.fsf@xxxxxxxx> <1649221790.16129979.1359956800185.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Hi -

nathans wrote:
> > - mention the possibility of self-signed certificates, possibly
> >   working out an example
> 
> You mean above and beyond the self-signed cert used in the example,
> I'm sure.  

I only see "obtain and install a certificate ..." in the writeup, not
anything about *how*.

> Is that really a valid way to set up a realistic server? [...]

It's obviously not applicable everywhere, but in other places, it's
better than no encryption at all.

> [...]
> > - consider defaulting to PCP_SECURE_SOCKETS=1
> 
> The semantics of that env var are that if a secure connection cannot
> be established, the connection fails.  [...]

That could be changed, or a different value could be invented with a
"prefer but not require ssl" meaning.  The idea would be to get a
as-secure-as-possible-by-default kind of situation.

- FChE

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>