From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: disable SSL compression? |
Date: | 2018-03-09 14:06:21 |
Message-ID: | CABUevEwRJd2bXkC=sEPfR=91-GJaVUztwX1cAzwba9gx0C00Eg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 3:06 AM, Peter Eisentraut <
peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 3/8/18 14:23, Claudio Freire wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> > <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >> It appears that SSL compression is nowadays deprecated as insecure.
> >> Yet, it is still enabled by libpq by default, and there is no way to
> >> disable it in the server. Should we make some changes here? Does
> >> anyone know more about this?
> >
> > Even if libpq enables it, it has to be enabled both in the client and
> > the server for it to work.
> >
> > OpenSSL disables the whole feature by default, and enabling it is
> > rather cumbersome. The result is that, at least with OpenSSL, the
> > server and client won't accept compression without extensive fiddling
> > by the user.
>
> But however that may be, libpq appears to enable it by default. This is
> what I get from psql:
>
> SSL connection (protocol: TLSv1.2, cipher: ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384,
> bits: 256, compression: on)
>
>
What platform does that actually work out of the box on? I have customers
who actively want to use it (for compression, not security -- replication
across limited and metered links), and the amount of workarounds they have
to put in place OS level to get it working is increasingly complicated.
That said, I think it makes sense to not have libpq enable it by default.
The simple change is to just have libpq default to it being off while still
allowing it to be turned on. I don't really see any downside of that at all
(given the state of the libraries), and it's supposedly a trivial change.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Steele | 2018-03-09 14:35:22 | Re: Fixes for missing schema qualifications |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-03-09 13:40:08 | Re: FOR EACH ROW triggers on partitioned tables |