(2010/01/07 16:17), Toru Maesaka wrote:
Yo all,
Looks like I've jumped on this band wagon a little late but allow me
to throw in my thoughts. Firstly, I'm totally against item-level
authentication.
Please use the correct term to avoid confusion :(
Authentication is a different concept from
Are you suggesting that applications has to handle the scramble buffer
correctly for each accesses? It seems to me we can obtain credential of
the client using SASL authentication, without any additional hints.
If the security map means something like access control list, what we
are talking
Please use the correct term to avoid confusion :(
Authentication is a different concept from access control.
Point taken :)
Obviously, it is valueable.
My proposition is just a framework to host an additional access control
feature without any assumption for security models. In other word,
(2010/01/07 17:50), dormando wrote:
Are you suggesting that applications has to handle the scramble buffer
correctly for each accesses? It seems to me we can obtain credential of
the client using SASL authentication, without any additional hints.
If the security map means something like
http://github.com/memcached/memcached/tree/engine-pu
Is it correct branch for the discussion base?
http://github.com/trondn/memcached/tree/engine is the tip. engine-pu is
... not quite master yet.
-Dormando
(2010/01/07 17:55), Toru Maesaka wrote:
Please use the correct term to avoid confusion :(
Authentication is a different concept from access control.
Point taken :)
Obviously, it is valueable.
My proposition is just a framework to host an additional access control
feature without any
i would like to unsubscribe from this mailing list
2010/1/7 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com
(2010/01/07 17:55), Toru Maesaka wrote:
Please use the correct term to avoid confusion :(
Authentication is a different concept from access control.
Point taken :)
Obviously, it is
On Jan 7, 2:02 am, Rami Badran ramibadran...@gmail.com wrote:
i would like to unsubscribe from this mailing list
OK. You don't have to announce it, though, just silently duck out.
Nobody will be offended.
Ahh, now I'm with you.
I don't deny it is niche. However, it is absolutely necessary feature
for people who want to set up secure web application platform.
It seems to me there is no difference from what I said, except for name
of the framework.
Indeed. Apologies for not realizing this
On Jan 7, 12:55 am, Toru Maesaka d...@torum.net wrote:
BTW, Is the storage engine stackable? If not so, it seems to me we will
face a tradeoff between persistent storage and access controls.
No. It's not stackable. If you want to do this you'd have to create an
abstraction layer within the
Well, someone is afoul within your network configuration wise.
Traceroute should work well beyond 1 hop.
Here's a list of public Looking Glass servers. Find one in your
country with a provider known to you perhaps and run traceroutes from
there:
http://www.traceroute.org/
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010
Ask Facebook, not this mailing list.
http://www.facebook.com/help/
/Henrik Schröder
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 01:02, Martin Bay m...@netomia.dk wrote:
How come sites like facebook does not place memcached servers around
the world with a live updated copy of their primary memcached servers?
Can an SSH tunnel not be used to add an authentication layer? Can't any
TCP/IP-based application protocol be encapsulated in an SSH tunnel?
Brandon Ramirez | Office: 585.214.5013 | Fax: 585.295.4848
Software Engineer II | Element K | www.elementk.com
2010/1/6 KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com:
(2010/01/07 11:39), Aaron Stone wrote:
If users means users of your site, then are you going to apply
per-user access controls to the rows in your database, too?
Yes, see the page.14 of the slides:
Like I said, I understand your argument. The question is what
proportion of the users would benefit from this? To be honest I don't
have the answer for this. However, taking into account that memcached
has been used worldwide
without serious complaints by players of all sizes in it's history,
Comment #6 on issue 111 by ptiquet: compile errors: array subscript has
type 'char'
http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=111
Confirmed fixed here. memcached 1.4.4 now compiles on Sol9/sparc with no
errors with
this change to util.c.
--
You received this message because
Well my reason for asking was actually related to memcached - wether
or not it is possible to use foreign located servers to maintain a
live copy of the primary memcached db and thereby serve foreign users
better. I guess the answer is yes.
On Jan 7, 11:46 am, Henrik Schröder skro...@gmail.com
(2010/01/07 20:57), brandon_rami...@elementk.com wrote:
Can an SSH tunnel not be used to add an authentication layer? Can't any
TCP/IP-based application protocol be encapsulated in an SSH tunnel?
This idea focuses on different topic.
SSH/SSL tunnel prevent information leaks with tapping
(2010/01/08 3:56), Aaron Stone wrote:
If we can identify the client (web application instance) in some way,
memcached will be able to store the something identifier of the cached
object. It may be called owner of the cached object (depending on the
security model).
Then, access control
(2010/01/07 23:36), Guille -bisho- wrote:
Like I said, I understand your argument. The question is what
proportion of the users would benefit from this? To be honest I don't
have the answer for this. However, taking into account that memcached
has been used worldwide
without serious
Yes, you can run remote memcached instances be they even say international.
I run expermentally a SSH connection to our server cluster remotely
and via it have access to our memcached cluster. I could thereby
connect memcached daemons at this location to our remote cluster.
Personally, I am
(2010/01/07 19:19), Toru Maesaka wrote:
Ahh, now I'm with you.
I don't deny it is niche. However, it is absolutely necessary feature
for people who want to set up secure web application platform.
It seems to me there is no difference from what I said, except for name
of the framework.
22 matches
Mail list logo
