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
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 |