[nanomsg] Re: How is security going to be implemented in nanomsg?
- From: Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@xxxxxxxx>
- To: "nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 13:55:42 -0500
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Drew Crawford <drew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> I'm not saying it's a bad system. The number of applications that fall
> into this class is pretty broad. But it's not universal, and I would want
> to poke at it in more detail before I used it. As it stands there are some
> items in this list that make it less than excellent for my use case.
Earlier, I ask my "what mechanisms" question. I am/was asserting that "what
kind and how much security should be baked into nanomsg" is the wrong
question. Security is a domain that does not cleanly overlap with
messaging; especially in a library whose name begins with "nano*".
I don't know what the correct question is. It might be "what makes
integrating security protocols / authentication / encryption / etc into an
architecture that uses nanomsg difficult?"
I know it's a basic point that doesn't involve any knowledge about network
/ computer security. It doesn't start out as a technology problem. It's a
product problem.
Is nanomsg a security library? If no, then what specific problems are you
trying to solve? Since it has to interact with libraries that are about
security, then what can be done to make nanomsg incredibly simple to
integrate into an application architecture that needs security, whatever
that might mean.
-Andrew
Other related posts:
