| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: SCRAM with channel binding downgrade attack |
| Date: | 2018-06-28 12:48:29 |
| Message-ID: | 20180628124829.GA6260@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 09:35:57AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> No, we absolutely still have SCRAM channel binding.
>
> *libpq* has no way to *enforce* it, meaning it always acts like our default SSL
> config which is "use it if available but if it's not then silently accept the
> downgrade". From a security perspective, it's just as bad as our default ssl
> config, but unlike ssl you can't configure a requirement in 11.
I think we are much more likely to be able to force channel binding by
default since there is no need to configure a certificate authority.
--
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 | Bruce Momjian | 2018-06-28 12:51:47 | Re: SCRAM with channel binding downgrade attack |
| Previous Message | Isaac Morland | 2018-06-28 12:27:54 | Re: Unexpected behavior of DROP VIEW/TABLE IF EXISTS |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2018-06-28 12:51:47 | Re: SCRAM with channel binding downgrade attack |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2018-06-28 08:07:44 | Re: SCRAM with channel binding downgrade attack |