From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>, Nathan Mueller <nmueller(at)cs(dot)wisc(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | SSL/TLS support (Was: Re: 7.3.1 stamped) |
Date: | 2002-12-19 02:30:18 |
Message-ID: | 20021218222737.C63985-100000@hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> scott.marlowe wrote:
> > > I wasn't sure how insecure SSL2 was, and whether it allowed you to
> > > authenticate without a password or something.
> >
> > SSL2 seems to get a lot of votes for being broken in ways that cannot be
> > fixed because they aren't simple buffer overflows. see:
> >
> > http://www.lne.com/ericm/papers/ssl_servers.html#1.2
> >
> > My suggestion would be to eventually phase out ssl2 in favor of ssl3 or
> > tls. And, as we are phasing it out, make it an opt-in thing, where the
> > dba has to turn on ssl2 KNOWING he is turning on a flawed protocol.
>
> That was sort of my point --- if we allow SSLv2 in the server, are we
> open to any security problems? Maybe not. I just don't know.
My understanding of SSL/TLS is that the DBA himself has to enable it ...
there has to be a server/client key setup, similar to how it gets done
with Apache for https connections ... can someone confirm whether this is
the case?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2002-12-19 02:34:07 | Re: 7.3.1 stamped |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-12-19 02:14:13 | Fancy ADD COLUMN |