Re: PostgreSQL - Weak DH group

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Cc: Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Nicolas Guini <nicolasguini(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Damian Quiroga <qdamian(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL - Weak DH group
Date: 2017-07-13 16:43:53
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQ-Ad_Q12FXqVC4-3-CbidXmo9uFBeZ2jPoCb29yB3dgQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> I rebased the patch, did some other clean up of error reporting, and added a
> GUC along those lines, as well as docs. How does this look?
>
> It's late in the release cycle, but it would be nice to sneak this into v10.
> Using weak 1024 bit DH parameters is arguably a security issue; it was
> originally reported as such. There's a work-around for older versions:
> generate custom 2048 bit parameters and place them in a file called
> "dh1024.pem", but that's completely undocumented.
>
> Thoughts?

The patch looks in good shape to me.

#include "utils/memutils.h"

-
static int my_sock_read(BIO *h, char *buf, int size);
That's unnecessary noise.

+ * Very uncool. Alternatively, the system could refuse to start
+ * if a DH parameters if not specified, but this would tend to
+ * piss off DBAs.
"is not specified".

> Objections to committing this now, instead of waiting for v11?

But I am -1 for the sneak part. It is not the time to have a new
feature in 10, the focus is to stabilize.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2017-07-13 16:54:10 Re: [BUGS] BUG #14634: On Windows pg_basebackup should write tar to stdout in binary mode
Previous Message Fabien COELHO 2017-07-13 16:34:55 Re: WIP Patch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors