Re: TODO: GNU TLS

On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 06:05:14PM +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> Except tht X.509 is already done (in a sense). The client can supply a
> certificate that the server can check, and vice-versa. You can't link
> this with the postgresql username yet, but I havn't seen any proposals
> about how to do that.

I suggest associating the SHA-1 fingerprint with the ROLE. I would love
to have this.

> The reason I wanted to use PGP is that I already have a PGP key. X.509
> certificates are far too complicated (a certificate authority is a
> useless extra step in my case).

I prefer to allow self-signed certificates approved by fingerprint,
rather than content - having a central authority vouche for a person's
right to use my system does not appeal to me. Yes, this does make
X.509 far too complicated. I have a tendency to put garbage in the
X.509 fields, and use only the private key / public key / fingerprint
of public certificate, which would match your use of PGP keys... :-)

Cheers,
mark

-- 
mark@mielke.cc / markm@ncf.ca / markm@nortel.com     __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
 One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all                      and in the darkness
bindthem...
 
                          http://mark.mielke.cc/