Re: 7.3.1 stamped

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Nathan Mueller wrote:
>
> > > Well, we break backward compatibility so people can't use SSL2 to
> > > connect to the server. Backward compatibility to a broken protocol
> > > isn't what I would call secure. Is that accurate?
> >
> > I suppose. As long as the incompatibilty is mentioned in HISTORY I'm
> > fine.
>
> I read the SSL_CTX_new man page, and they recommend using SSLv23_method to
> provide backwards compatibility ... if someone doesn't wan tto use SSL2,
> they have the option to use TLS, but we shouldn't be forcigin them to use
> one or the othe r...
>
> I have made the change and am just building v7.3.1 right now ... should be
> available in a few minutes, and I'll announce it this evening as being
> available ... can you grab a copy and make sure that it works as expected?

OK, I see from your commit message:

From the SSL_CTX_new man page:

"SSLv23_method(void), SSLv23_server_method(void), SSLv23_client_method(void)

A TLS/SSL connection established with these methods will understand the SSLv2,
SSLv3, and TLSv1 protocol. A client will send out SSLv2 client hello messages
and will indicate that it also understands SSLv3 and TLSv1. A server will
understand SSLv2, SSLv3, and TLSv1 client hello messages. This is the best
choice when compatibility is a concern."

This will maintain backwards compatibility for those us that don't use
TLS connections ...

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.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073