| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chris Campbell <chris_campbell(at)mac(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Recent vendor SSL renegotiation patches break PostgreSQL |
| Date: | 2010-02-22 19:34:03 |
| Message-ID: | 9837222c1002221134r3bc6ebe4oeb54c01e3c128faa@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/2/22 Chris Campbell <chris_campbell(at)mac(dot)com>:
> On Feb 22, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> I think we already missed the window where it would have been sensible
>> to install a hack workaround for this. If we'd done that in November
>> it might have been reasonable, but by now it's too late for any hack
>> we install to spread much faster than fixed openssl libraries.
>
> Could we simply ignore renegotiation errors? Or change them to warnings? That may enable us to work with the semi-fixed OpenSSL libraries that are currently in the field, without disabling the functionality altogether.
I guess we could, but if we do that then we've opened a window where
someone can attack us if we *have* a properly working openssl, haven't
we?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-02-22 19:39:46 | Re: Recent vendor SSL renegotiation patches break PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-02-22 19:29:55 | Re: scheduler in core |