On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 03:24:26PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 7/19/16 10:00 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > What could actually be useful there is to explicitly put hostnossl on > > the localhost entries. With the current defaults on the clients, that > > wouldn't break anything, and it would leave people without the > > performance issues that you run into in the default deployments. And for > > localhost it really does't make sense to encrypt -- for the local LAN > > segment that can be argued, but for localhost... > > But even on localhost you ideally want a way to confirm that the server > you are connecting to is the right one, so you might want certificates. > Plus the server might want certificates from the clients. (See also the > occasional discussion about supporting SSL over Unix-domain sockets.)
Yes, I am thinking of a case where Postgres is down but a malevolent user starts a Postgres server on 5432 to gather passwords. Verifying against an SSL certificate would avoid this problem, so there is some value in using SSL on localhost. (There is no such security available for Unix-domain socket connections.) -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
