From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Mei Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:51:48 -0600 Subject: [Lustre-devel] Security issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48A09854.8010401@sun.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org Peter Braam wrote: >>> You do need to sign it and encrypt it - for multiple purposes, to secure the >>> wire transaction and for storage on the server. >> Sorry I'm still a little confused. To be exactly clear, do you mean: In >> the future we'll use NASD-style protocol to secure the bulk data's wire >> transfer & storage on server; and for now we can simply leave the bulk >> data unprotected? > > No you need to be able to encrypt it. > > I'm just stating that if you the current solution (which gives privacy using > GSS between client and OSS iirc) is going to be changed, then please change > it in the correct way to accommodate re-using checksums and re-using the > encrypted data for storage. Doing either of these things twice is > pointless. > > Probably there should be options not to do so as part of the configuration. Peter, Thanks for clarifying this! Yes that's what we're thinking. -- Eric