From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <aht(at)8kdata(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Some thoughts about SCRAM implementation |
Date: | 2017-04-12 15:26:29 |
Message-ID: | 20170412152629.GI20340@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:13:03PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >That said, I stand by my comment that I don't think it's the enterprises
> >that need or want the channel binding. If they care about it, they have
> >already put certificate validation in place, and it won't buy them anything.
> >
> >Because channel binding also only secures the authentication (SCRAM), not
> >the actual contents and commands that are then sent across the channel,
> >AFAIK?
>
> TLS protects the contents and the commands. The point of channel binding is
> to defeat a MITM attack, where the client connects to a malicious server,
> using TLS, which then connects to the real server, using another TLS
> connection. Channel binding will detect that the client and the real server
> are not communicating over the same TLS connection, but two different TLS
> connections, and make the authentication fail.
>
> SSL certificates, with validation, achieves the same, but channel binding
> achieves it without the hassle of certificates.
How does it do that?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-04-12 15:26:41 | Re: the need to finish |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-04-12 15:23:54 | Re: TAP tests take a long time |