| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: SCRAM with channel binding downgrade attack |
| Date: | 2018-06-28 08:05:23 |
| Message-ID: | 1c0084ce-7ed8-fb77-08ea-86cdc6f17288@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
On 6/28/18 09:33, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Should there be one or more parameters? How should they interact? At
> which level should they be controlled? Limited to SCRAM or other channel
> bindings? Are the different levels of SCRAM to be considered different
> protocols or the same protocol with a tweak? etc.
OK, I'm fine with postponing this.
But before we drop the SCRAM business completely off the open items, I
think we need to consider how TLS 1.3 affects this.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-06-28 08:05:47 | SCRAM with channel binding downgrade attack |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-06-28 08:04:05 | Re: SCRAM with channel binding downgrade attack |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-06-28 08:05:47 | SCRAM with channel binding downgrade attack |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-06-28 08:04:05 | Re: SCRAM with channel binding downgrade attack |