Re: Allowing SSL connection of v11 client to v10 server with SCRAM channel binding

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Allowing SSL connection of v11 client to v10 server with SCRAM channel binding
Date: 2017-11-22 19:08:28
Message-ID: 4a7a86d1-0df0-4281-91eb-369c42825ce7@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/19/17 23:08, Michael Paquier wrote:
> When using "n" or "y", the data sent by the client to the server about
> the use of channel binding is a base64-encoded string of respectively
> "n,," (biws) and "y,," (eSws). However, as noticed by Peter E here, a
> v10 server is able to allow connections with "n,,", but not with
> "y,,":
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/887b6fb7-15fe-239e-2aad-5911d2b0945b@2ndquadrant.com
>
> When trying to connect to a v11 client based on current HEAD to a v10
> server using SSL, then the connection would fail. The attached patch,
> for REL_10_STABLE, allows a server to accept as well as input "eSws",
> which is a combination that can now happen. This way, a v10 server
> accepts connections from a v11 and newer client with SSL.

I noticed what I think is an omission in the current v11 code. We also
need to check whether the channel binding flag (n/y/p) encoded in the
client-final-message is the same one used in the client-first-message.
See attached patch. This would also affect what we might end up
backpatching.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Check-channel-binding-flag-at-end-of-SCRAM-exchange.patch text/plain 2.1 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2017-11-22 19:18:26 Re: [HACKERS] SQL procedures
Previous Message Jesper Pedersen 2017-11-22 18:56:06 Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning