| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 14:29 -0400, Victor Duchovni wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 06:32:41PM +0100, Patrick wrote: > > > If it takes only some effort to setup 2 layers of security then why not? > > Only useful if the layers are independent. If they fail together, there is > not much value. I see your point that if both layers depend on the same mechanism then a second layer will not help. Thanks for pointing that out. > If your client host is 0wned, the attacker gets both your client cert and > your password. The client cert key is stronger, so go with that and skip > SASL. Ok. > If somehow the attacker gets the physical machine, but not your password, > you can remove the compromised fingerprint from the access table, you > are probably more worried about the stolen data than relay rights... Stolen data is indeed the biggest threat but getting blacklisted because of relaying is not something I look forward to either. I like your idea of just removing the fingerprint and be done with it. > > In the mean time I have tried to get this working with Evolution and the > > config below but I only get the error below. Maybe Evolution does not > > support certificate authentication. > > > > Mar 12 18:19:37 server postfix/smtpd[13294]: warning: TLS library > > problem: 13294:error:140890C7:SSL > > routines:SSL3_GET_CLIENT_CERTIFICATE:peer did not return a > > certificate:s3_srvr.c:2458: > > > I am afraid that is not a Postfix question. Indeed it isn't. Was just some info for the archives in case someone else bumps into this issue. Thanks for your feedback. Most appreciated. Regards, Patrick
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 2004-2008 readlist.com