On 11/14/2015 7:03 PM, Leyne, Sean wrote: > Doesn't the need for a key server make the problem more complicated > that required?
More complicated? Certainly. More complicated that required? Don't know yet. > Although I think it should be supported, via engine/config. I was > referring to a more basic/straight-forward deployment. I have > experience using web portal from ADP for processing my payroll. In > order to access the portal, not only do I need user credentials but > also my PC needs to have a SSL cert installed on my PC (and that cert > needs to be installed on any PC that I want to access the portal > from). So, following this model, I see my user credentials as the same > as the typical FB database user credentials. And my user cert being > equivalent of the cert that would be assigned/linked to the database. Sean Please correct me if I'm wrong (I stay as far as possible from certificates and any form of PKCS), but I believe that all a client certificate does is to demonstrate that an IP or range of IPs belong to who you say you are. When you get down to essentials, that's basically the same technology that I'm suggesting for a key server, the only difference is the certificate says a trust third party vouches for me as opposed to the key server already knowing the IPs. And, not incidentally, the key server idea doesn't require the pain and expense of buy and maintaining certificates. Maybe the problem isn't solvable, isn't worth solving, or any possible solutions are too weak to bother with. But I can think of only two attacks on my schema: Cracking the key vault or successfully stealing the key server password AND masquerading as the database machine when the real guy is down. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
