From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
Cc: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgcrypto seeding problem when ssl=on |
Date: | 2012-12-23 19:49:08 |
Message-ID: | 1015.1356292148@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 02:20:56PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I believe that we'd be better off doing something in postmaster.c to
>> positively ensure that each session has a distinct seed value. Notice
>> that BackendRun() already takes measures to ensure that's the case for
>> the regular libc random() function; it seems like a reasonable extension
>> to also worry about OpenSSL's PRNG.
>> #ifdef USE_SSL
>> if (EnableSSL)
>> {
>> struct timeval tv;
>>
>> gettimeofday(&tv, NULL);
>> RAND_add(&tv, sizeof(tv), 0);
>> }
>> #endif
> Take the caution one step further and make it independent of EnableSSL. In a
> stock installation, a !EnableSSL postmaster will never seed its PRNG, and
> there's no vulnerability. Add a shared_preload_libraries module that uses the
> OpenSSL PRNG in its _PG_init(), and suddenly you're vulnerable again.
Meh. In a postmaster that wasn't built with SSL support at all, such
a module is still dangerous (and I'm not convinced anybody would build
such a module anyway). I think we should confine our ambitions to
preventing security issues caused by our own code.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-12-23 19:54:10 | Re: pgcrypto seeding problem when ssl=on |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-12-23 19:45:15 | Re: pgcrypto seeding problem when ssl=on |