OK, hadn't seen your response (and Stephen Frost's) before sending
mine. I think I hear everybody loud and clear--bad idea!
Ken
On 06/01/2010 06:47 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 02/06/10 08:06, Ken Tanzer wrote:
Somehow, exposing my database ports to the internet scares me more than
any (possibly crazy) stuff I'm trying to do. :)
Why? Surely it's less scary than exposing ssh+shell access (!!), even if
you think the shell is locked down to running only a crippled version of
psql.
You can use SSL with client certificates to lock down access to the
database if you don't trust simple SSL-protected username/password
authentication alone.
Given the choice, I'd expose Pg to the Internet _any_ day before even
considering exposing semi-public ssh access when I didn't absolutely
have to.
But seriously I think I need to give them accounts--I'm setting up
online instances of a web app, so they have a set of (editable) PHP
files, possibly some storage, a log file, etc. It seemed that setting
each up as its own user was better than going through some uber-process
that had access to all the files.
Sounds like you need to provide them with a web interface to do the
work, and have the web app talk to Pg.
--
Craig Ringer
--
-------------------------------------------------------
AGENCY Software
For nonprofits that want to take control of their data
Use it. Like it. Share it. Build it. Buy it.
http://agency-software.org
-------------------------------------------------------
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
