| From: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Direct SSL connection and ALPN loose ends |
| Date: | 2024-06-20 17:02:41 |
| Message-ID: | CAOYmi+=YCdJVAqbCYJy60Nc2PARvNncm6SaBnhaJiJy2xncjMg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 9:23 AM Jacob Champion
<jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> > I think the behavior with v2 and v3 errors should be the same. And I
> > think an immediate failure is appropriate on any v2/v3 error during
> > negotiation, assuming we don't use those errors for things like "TLS not
> > supported", which would warrant a fallback.
>
> For GSS encryption, it was my vague understanding that older servers
> respond with an error rather than the "not supported" indication. For
> TLS, though, the decision in a49fbaaf (immediate failure) seemed
> reasonable.
Would an open item for this be appropriate?
Thanks,
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-06-20 17:12:09 | call for applications: mentoring program for code contributors |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2024-06-20 17:02:36 | Re: Extension security improvement: Add support for extensions with an owned schema |