On 16 Jul 2003 at 8:54, Sean wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Bernie, CTA wrote: > > > > We use a modified (well hacked) version of PostgreSQL > > Replicator and have experienced no significant problem. > <big scissors> > > Just out of curiosity, I am wondering why postgres looked like a > better solution than an ldap based solution. LDAP is supposed to > be scalable and replicable, and designed for mostly read-only > data which to me is what you were looking for. > > > Don't get me wrong, I can also see where replicable postgres > stuff would be nice and I would be interested in it for another > project (that quite possibly will never get off the gorund), but > the first read through your requirements seemed like it was > screaming ldap =) > >
Well, for starters we could not tolerate the security vulnerabilities found in certain LDAP implementations, which if exploited could result in denial-of-service attacks and unauthorized privileged access. Furthermore, I believe that the overhead involved implementing and maintaining an LDAP solution cannot be justified when considering security, performance and economics. - - **************************************************** Bernie Chief Technology Architect Chief Security Officer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Euclidean Systems, Inc. ******************************************************* // "There is no expedient to which a man will not go // to avoid the pure labor of honest thinking." // Honest thought, the real business capital. // Observe> Think> Plan> Think> Do> Think> ******************************************************* - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
