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

Re: OpenSSL key renegotiation with patched openssl

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: OpenSSL key renegotiation with patched openssl
Date: 2009-11-30 21:21:10
Message-ID: 9837222c0911301321g724291efw821dc74d5640486a@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
2009/11/27 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> The discussion I saw suggested that you need such a patch at both ends.
>
>> and likely requires a restart of both postgresql and slony afterwards...
>
> Actually, after looking through the available info about this:
> https://svn.resiprocate.org/rep/ietf-drafts/ekr/draft-rescorla-tls-renegotiate.txt
> I think my comment above is wrong.  It is useful to patch the
> *server*-side library to reject a renegotiation request.  Applying that
> patch on the client side, however, is useless and simply breaks things.

I haven't looked into the details but - is there a point for us to
remove the requests for renegotiation completely? Will this help those
that *haven't* upgraded their openssl library? I realize it's not
necessarily our bug to fix, but if we can help.. :) If a patched
version of openssl ignores the renegotiation anyway, there's nothing
lost if we turn it off in postgresql, is there?

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2009-11-30 21:22:25
Subject: Re: New VACUUM FULL
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2009-11-30 21:18:59
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks

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