[EmielMols]

We might add proxy-over-ssh/vlan options later on, but it would be incompatible with the 2-clicks-and-your-done interface right now.

As far as I know, postgres authentication is rather simple and exposing the port does not easily add huge liability.

This is really a trade-off between ease-of-setup and better security. We're eager to talk to (a lot of) users to see what there current setup is and how PGBackup could add some value for them.

[monksy]

> exposing the port would not add liabilities.

Famous last words of security on the internet.

[brandon272]

The comment caught me off guard as well. It seems as a customer you're placing a lot of trust in this company as you're replicating your data to them and then trusting that they will handle and store it securely.

[okket]

Until then (or additionally) you could add a FAQ entry with your server IP range(s), so people can allow them in their firewall for the specific port (usually 5432).

[brianwawok]

If they are on AWS or similar, their IP range may be <all of AWS>, at which point your firewall is not doing much walling.

[anarazel]

Even if not concerned with security, it opens a pretty easy DOS window. Authentication happens after forking of a new backend. That's not exactly cheap...

[EmielMols]

Thanks for pointing this out!

[NetStrikeForce]

You might want to use an overlay networking solution like https://wormhole.network

Edit to add why: You'll have full reachability between pgbackup and your customer's servers without opening ports inbound on either side. Traffic is also encrypted :-)

Disclaimer: I am part of Wormhole Network.

[billhathaway]

For customers with stronger security concerns, they could issue your service a client cert and only allow replication connections from your service's IP range that auth with certificate.

[AznHisoka]

Seems like so much hassle and energy.. Which could be used to back it all up yourself.