Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Recent vendor SSL renegotiation patches break PostgreSQL

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Ledford <mledford(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Recent vendor SSL renegotiation patches break PostgreSQL
Date: 2010-02-03 16:09:29
Message-ID: 11293.1265213369@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Michael Ledford <mledford(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> One might argue that the current method is already weakened as it is
> measured by the amount of data sent instead of of a length of time. A
> session could live a long time under the 512MB threshold depending on
> the queries that are being performed.

Renegotiation after X amount of data is the recommended method AFAIK,
because it limits the volume of data available to cryptanalysis.
What makes you think that elapsed time is relevant at all?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-02-03 16:11:12
Subject: Re: [CFReview] Red-Black Tree
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-02-03 16:08:19
Subject: Re: Review of Writeable CTE Patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group