On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 19:18, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 18:59, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> It's not clear to me what behavior you are proposing. Would we
>>> disregard the hostssl line or treat it as an error?
>> It would absolutely have to be treat it as an error. another option
>> would be to throw a more specific warning at that place, and keep the
>> rest of the code the same.
>> We can't *ignore* hostssl rows in ssl=off mode, that would be an easy
>> way for an admin to set up a system they thought was secure but
> No, I don't see that it's a security hole. What would happen if the
> line is ignored is you couldn't make connections with it. I think you
> are positing that it'd be a potential security problem if a connection
> attempt fell through that line and then succeeded with some later line
> that had less-desirable properties --- but if your pg_hba.conf contents
> are like that, you already have issues, because a non-SSL-enabled client
> is going to reach that later line anyway.
> Nonetheless, it's extremely confusing to the admin to ignore such a
> line, and that's not a good thing in any security-sensitive context.
Yeah, better make any misconfiguration very clear - let's throw an error.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-04-25 17:35:05|
|Subject: Re: Foreign table permissions and cloning|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-04-25 17:19:52|
|Subject: Re: Unfriendly handling of pg_hba SSL options with SSL off|