[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: tls private key


On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Tyler Gates <tgates81@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alex,
>  encrypting the private key really isn't necessary and I highly doubt it
> would work for your application nor be worth the hassel. Securing via file
> permisssions as mentioned previously is really the best way to tackle this.
> Think of 'other layers of protection' being firewalls, intrusion detection,
> restricted logins, chroot jails, etc., etc...

yep go those, firewalls, permissions etc.

I am not sure why every one is against me trying to use another layer
of protection, just because I permission it as root.root 440, doesn't
mean its safe. I could make it safer, but unecrypting the private key,
starting slapd and removing the unecrypted file.

Or thing of it another way, my private key could be on a usb key, that
i insert into the machine on start up and remove once slapd has

I have seen secure machine compromised before, somebody installed cvs
forgot to change the cvs userid password, root hack and a remote user
had access to the system.  Some times people do silly things

on my laptop - I encrypt the fs and the swap space and my gpg key have
userid/passwords and my certs have userid password protection, like to
do the same for my ldap setup as well :)

I understand the reasons for encrypting and signing packets or
information, just asking if slapd needs access to the private key
after it has read the file on startup.

> Encryption really works best for UDP like transportation like email where
> you cannot guarantee the recipient is the only person able to 'see' the
> document ;)