From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: SCRAM with channel binding downgrade attack |
Date: | 2018-06-29 02:16:01 |
Message-ID: | 20180629021151.GD2965@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:37:55AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> The set of APIs that we use to the SSL abstraction layer is very
> internal, so it would not be an issue if we add some in stable branches,
> no? My point is that from OpenSSL point of view, TLS 1.3 stuff has been
> added in 1.1.1 which is now in beta 6 stage, so we could consider as
> well all this part once OpenSSL is released. That's compatibility work
> I wanted to work on anyway. Impossible to say down to which versions of
> Postgres things could be applied easily though without a deep
> investigation of the new compatibility breakages that upstream OpenSSL
> has very-likely introduced in upstream.
>
> Still it does not sound completely strange either to me to wait for
> OpenSSL to release as we won't be able to have a full solution designed
> before that.
Actually, I got curious about that part and just compiled Postgres with
OpenSSL 1.1.1 beta 6 that I compiled manually, and channel binding is
generating consistent data for both tls-unique and tls-server-end-point
even if TLS v1.3 is used, while tests in src/test/ssl/ are all able to
pass. So that's less dramatic than what I thought after the melodrama
of upgrading the code to 1.1.0.
The thread where this is discussed is also kind of interesting as the
last email points to having tls-unique deprecated for all the TLS
versions:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg18265.html
I am able to find easily drafts of TLS 1.3, but I am not seeing an RFC
associated to it, which would be the base document to rely on I
guess... So that's really hard to make any decision in this area
without the real deal. As far as I can see tls-unique could be
deprecated and replaced, but from OpenSSL point of view it technically
works.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2018-06-29 03:15:54 | Re: Make deparsing of column defaults faster |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-06-29 01:37:55 | Re: SCRAM with channel binding downgrade attack |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-06-29 20:42:36 | Re: SCRAM with channel binding downgrade attack |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-06-29 01:37:55 | Re: SCRAM with channel binding downgrade attack |