Re: 7.3.1 stamped

On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > > My question is whether it is safe to be making this change in a minor
> > > release? Does it work with 7.3 to 7.3.1 combinations? My other
> > > question is, if SSLv2 isn't secure, couldn't a client say they only
> > > support SSLv2, and hence break into the server? That was my original
> > > hesitancy, that and the fact Bear the SSL guy didn't want it.
> >
> > Wow, which part of "A TLS/SSL connection established with these methods
> > will understand the SSLv2, SSLv3, and TLSv1 protocol" are you finiding
> > particularly confusing? As nate explained to you, and the man page
> > section I commited states, TLSv1_method *only* supports TLS connections
> > ... SSLv23_method supports SSLv2, v3 and TLSv1 ...
> >
> > As for 'break into the server" ... ummm ... isn't that what pg_hba.conf is
> > for? I don't know about servers you run, but I don't let just anyone
> > connect to my server, and, in fact, close down the databases themsleves to
> > specific users ... if you don't trust the client, why are you giving him
> > accss to your data, regardless of the protocol being used to encrypt the
> > sessino??
>
> I wasn't sure how insecure SSL2 was, and whether it allowed you to
> authenticate without a password or something.

SSL2 seems to get a lot of votes for being broken in ways that cannot be
fixed because they aren't simple buffer overflows. see:

http://www.lne.com/ericm/papers/ssl_servers.html#1.2

My suggestion would be to eventually phase out ssl2 in favor of ssl3 or
tls. And, as we are phasing it out, make it an opt-in thing, where the
dba has to turn on ssl2 KNOWING he is turning on a flawed protocol.