On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:41 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:45:54PM +0800, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > > Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> > >> Is there a reason why we don't have a parameter on the client
> > >> mirroring ssl_ciphers?
> > >
> > > Dunno, do we need one? I am not sure what the cipher negotiation
> > > looks like or which side has the freedom to choose.
> > I haven't looked into the details, but it seems reasonable that
> > *either* side should be able to at least define a list of ciphers it
> > *doens't* want to talk with.
> > Do we need it - well, it makes sense for the client to be able to say
> > "I won't trust 56-bit encryption" before it sends over the password,
> > imo..
> > >> That, or just have DEFAULT as being the default (which in current
> > >> openssl means ALL:!aNULL:!eNULL.
> > >
> > > If our default isn't the same as the underlying default, I have to
> > > question why not.
> > Yeah, that's exaclty what I'm questioning here..
> > > But are you sure this "!" notation will work with
> > > all openssl versions?
> > Uh. We have the ! notation in our default *now*. What openssl also
> > supports is the text "DEFAULT", which is currently the equivalent of
> > "ALL!aNULL!eNULL". The question, which is valid of course, should be
> > if "DEFAULT" works with all openssl versions.
> > It would seem reasonable it does, but I haven't investigated.
> Do we want to change our ssl_ciphers default to 'DEFAULT'? Currently it
> is 'ALL:!ADH:!LOW:!EXP:!MD5:@STRENGTH'.
Did we ever get anywhere with this? Is this a change we want to do for 9.3?
Since nobody seems to have come up with a motivation for not following the
openssl default, we probably should?
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Hannu Krosing||Date: 2013-01-01 16:07:22|
|Subject: Re: pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?|
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2013-01-01 15:10:32|
|Subject: pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3?|