[nanomsg] Re: How is security going to be implemented in nanomsg?
- From: Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@xxxxxxxx>
- To: "nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 08:44:20 -0500
On Saturday, June 14, 2014, Drew Crawford <drew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> You've wandered into what is potentially one of the more flamewar-risky
> topics.
>
> In the interests of avoiding a flamewar I will try to state the facts that
> I understand to be generally-agreeable.
>
> There is no particular consensus on how (or if) authentication should be
> implemented in nanomsg. There are a lot of strong views, because everybody
> on all sides is keenly aware of the importance of getting something like
> authentication right. You can see many of these views in prior mailing
> list threads on this topic.
>
> Assuming everybody's position is about the same as it was during the
> relevant threads, I don't think there is likely to be substantial progress
> on achieving further consensus in the immediate future.
>
> Drew
>
> On Jun 14, 2014, at 6:48 AM, crocket <crockabiscuit@xxxxxxxxx
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > I personally do not like TLS for authentication because maintaining
> > TLS certificates has been a nightmare for sysadmins like me.
> > I was pretty much impressed by ZeroMQ authentication when I read
> > pieter's blog articles.
> > I also thought about using ZeroMQ authentication for website logins,
> > but public key authentication looked too complex for ordinary facebook
> > users to use.
> > Do you think secure authentication is a good idea for nanomsg? If it
> > is so, how would you want to implement authentication in nanomsg?
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> On 14/06/14 11:31, crocket wrote:
> >>> I read about SSL/TLS security in this mailing list before. Which
> >>> security mechanisms do people have in mind?
> >>
> >> The discussion was in context of hop-by-hop encryption of data passed
> >> over TCP connections.
> >>
> >> Martin
> >>
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> >>
> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTnBqMAAoJENTpVjxCNN9YyBsH/ilUrlUW8Q2odqf5vaWlRgtA
> >> d+2/tFOcFTngw1Mi0lYa0XFiLvo6TTJypnJcCQdv3MsrCJzrryfTuRiJRnlEqvGM
> >> f3LsUBSjFX4yoqvcB8E039G+GM8frLhpYajg9vlobLyb73vnbjkHFPvw3yAENNNF
> >> ygNoY4Q+oZVZT2ilFJ7ecQt6EVuwUdA0H8fhyuPfAWzxOlGFccUzTPELs4TLZg4+
> >> yBeq3sUlYoClJVLkQaKqpZpfUIGEEVP0rWk4pC4u6CdhZgoFLMfrDErBGhDUSpO1
> >> 9zpa1DA2GeITEKGyAU8IkUvwlxbI2lV+Suy25Qr/bIsqkl96h4r5PmoOKiInS3U=
> >> =7pUr
> >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >>
> >
>
>
>
In that spirit:
What mechanisms are missing from nanomsg that make it difficult to
integrate it into an existing security layer?
If none, or those could be addressed, then I believe that you'd be a
tutorial away from something valuable.
-Andrew
Other related posts:
