Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jchris@gmail.com designates
 74.125.83.180 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date
         :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer;
        b=Z+qv4IZmh/4OtEnyZTaK02w+SR9ci507CirNCHi13Zd7L2c44sGPvWFIOF/MHimeQm
         s1mBr53obi07Fjti+pmiLs0sCxBOKvLVbaX4E0+St3mKTpSrzQaFjONEAIm5pfmkvSy9
         hUfcXwEGNfW+lphLR2eXVu3QE92T8SRkSfJlE=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Subject: Re: Securing replication
From: J Chris Anderson <jchris@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikB7jK7uQ3E2N9o3th_rYvNWZ7hsbWJ0klAvR_h@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:50:30 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3878A99D-E15E-4785-9E25-6CBC57D726ED@gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikB7jK7uQ3E2N9o3th_rYvNWZ7hsbWJ0klAvR_h@mail.gmail.com>
To: user@couchdb.apache.org


On Jul 19, 2010, at 2:25 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:

> I have a webapp acting as a security gateway/reverse proxy for other
> webapps.  Its data therefore includes authorization data which itself
> needs to be protected from unauthorized access.  Currently that data
> lives in a localhost-only CouchDB, but I now want to distribute the
> application across more than one server, so I'm going to have to open
> up a hole to allow replication.  My current thoughts are:
>=20
> 1. Keep the Couch instances listening on localhost only, but open SSH
> tunnels between them to use for the replication.
>    Based on past experience with SSH tunneling, this seems somewhat
> fragile, and probably more complex than is warranted.
>=20
> 2. Use iptables to lock down access on each server so that only the
> other server can connect to the Couch instance.
>   This is still moderately increases the complexity (there's an
> external configuration to keep in synch with the Couch configs), but
> it seems simpler and less likely to break than the SSH solution, while
> still offering moderate security (in combination with configuring
> Couch to require admin credentials).
>=20
> Any other thoughts?  Advice welcome.
>=20

these both sound sane. If the couches are not behind a firewall together =
I'd suggest ssh tunneling (or https) to prevent eavesdropping.

Chris

>=20
> --=20
> Mark J. Reed <markjreed@gmail.com>