Re: fe-secure.c and SSL/TLS

> According to SSL_set_verify manpage, you are perhaps talking about
> SSL_VERIFY_NONE case? Which has suggestion that you should call
> SSL_get_verify_result if you want to know if cert was valid.
>
> But if SSL_VERIFY_PEER is used, this is not needed.
Oh, man.... I missed that detail.

Please accept my apologies.

Jeff

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 06:01:01PM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>> I know of no other ways to check the result of OpenSSL's chain
>> validation. The open question (for me) is where are
>> SSL_get_verify_result/X509_V_OK checked? Neither show up in the
>> Postgres sources.
>
> According to SSL_set_verify manpage, you are perhaps talking about
> SSL_VERIFY_NONE case? Which has suggestion that you should call
> SSL_get_verify_result if you want to know if cert was valid.
>
> But if SSL_VERIFY_PEER is used, this is not needed.
>
>> > 3) libpq starts using TLSv1_2_method() by default.
>> > 4) libpq will give switch to users to request TLSv1.2.
>> This might have negative effects on non-TLSv1.2 clients. For example,
>> an Android 2.3 device can only do TLSv1.0 (IIRC). I think there's a
>> similar limitation on a lot of Windows XP clients (depending on the IE
>> version and SChannel version). And OpenSSL-based clients prior to
>> 1.0.0h (released 14 Mar 2012) will have trouble (if I am reading the
>> change log correctly).
>
> Note we are talking about client-side settings here. So the negative
> effect would be that clients with TLSv1.2+ libpq cannot connect to
> old servers.
>
>> I believe the "standard" way of achieving TLS1.0 and above is to use
>> the SSLv23_client_method() and then remove the SSL protocols with
>> SSL_OP_NO_SSLv2 and SSL_OP_NO_SSLv3. I have to use handwaiving around
>> "standard" because I don't believe its documented anywhere (one of the
>> devs told me its the standard way to do it.).
>
> Indeed - Python ssl module seems to achieve TLSv1.1 and it uses
> SSLv23_method(). But still no TLSv1.2.
>
> I'll play with it a bit to see whether it can have any negative effects.
>