On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 5:47 PM Jacob Champion <jchampion@timescale.com> wrote:
> Okay, but this is walking back from the network example you just
> described upthread. Do you still consider that in scope, or...?
Sorry, I don't know which example you mean.
> > If machines B and C aren't under our control such that we can
> > configure them that way, then the configuration is fundamentally
> > insecure in a way that we can't really fix.
>
> Here's probably our biggest point of contention. You're unlikely to
> convince me that this is the DBA's fault.
>
> If machines B and C aren't under our control, then our *protocol* is
> fundamentally insecure in a way that we have the ability to fix, in a
> way that's already been characterized in security literature.
I guess I wouldn't have a problem blaming the DBA here, but you seem
to be telling me that the security literature has settled on another
kind of approach, and I'm not in a position to dispute that. It still
feels weird to me, though.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
