Comment # 2
on bug 981
from Frank Ch. Eigler
> We I (for one) use pmlc on one machine to interrogate (and sometimes
> control) pmlogger on another machine.
OK. (Have you considered perhaps going through pmcd to talk to a pmlogger?
That way we get networking & security.)
> There is already an access control clause available in the pmlogger
> configuration files, and I think Nathan's recent work on making a better
> fist of creating default pmlogger configuration files included turning off
> remote pmlc access to change the pmlogger config (stops my 2. above, but
> allows 1.).
For what it's worth, even unauthenticated localhost access does not fare
much better from a security point-of-view.
> It does not help Frank's concerns much, but pmlogger is no more of a DOS
> attack vector than pmcd is!
Except that the data stored by pmlogger can be manipulated by unauthorized
pmlc usage (whereas pmcd is on the whole read-only), so that makes the
pmlogger archives unreliable as a record of what happened.