From: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Subject: | Re: Direct SSL connection and ALPN loose ends |
Date: | 2024-04-29 18:06:52 |
Message-ID: | CAEudQAq3ck2OdVk9gt=X+uVnyQF9HGU19H0x-HEgCDsVC2uHKQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Em seg., 29 de abr. de 2024 às 14:56, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
escreveu:
> On 29/04/2024 20:10, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > With TLS 1.3 and others there is possibly a security flaw using ALPN [1].
> >
> > It seems to me that the ALPN protocol can be bypassed if the client does
> > not correctly inform the ClientHello header.
> >
> > So, the suggestion is to check the ClientHello header in the server and
> > terminate the TLS handshake early.
>
> Sounds to me like it's working as designed. ALPN in general is optional;
> if the client doesn't request it, then you proceed without it. We do
> require ALPN for direct SSL connections though. We can, because direct
> SSL connections is a new feature in Postgres. But we cannot require it
> for the connections negotiated with SSLRequest, or we break
> compatibility with old clients that don't use ALPN.
>
Ok.
But what if I have a server configured for TLS 1.3 and that requires ALPN
to allow access?
What about a client configured without ALPN requiring connection?
>
> There is a check in direct SSL mode that ALPN was used
> (ProcessSSLStartup in backend_startup.c):
>
> > if (!port->alpn_used)
> > {
> > ereport(COMMERROR,
> > (errcode(ERRCODE_PROTOCOL_VIOLATION),
> > errmsg("received direct SSL connection
> request without ALPN protocol negotiation extension")));
> > goto reject;
> > }
>
> That happens immediately after the SSL connection has been established.
>
> Hmm. I guess it would be better to abort the connection earlier, without
> completing the TLS handshake. Otherwise the client might send the first
> message in wrong protocol to the PostgreSQL server. That's not a
> security issue for the PostgreSQL server: the server disconnects without
> reading the message. And I don't see any way for an ALPACA attack when
> the server ignores the client's message. Nevertheless, from the point of
> view of keeping the attack surface as small as possible, aborting
> earlier seems better.
>
So the ClientHello callback is the correct way to determine the end.
best regards,
Ranier Vilela
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2024-04-29 18:07:36 | Re: Possible to get LIMIT in an index access method? |
Previous Message | Jacob Champion | 2024-04-29 18:04:41 | Re: Direct SSL connection with ALPN and HBA rules |