Re: Negotiating the SCRAM channel binding type

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Negotiating the SCRAM channel binding type
Date: 2018-07-12 13:08:18
Message-ID: 20180712130818.GB1167@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:34:51PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Meh. We're not going implement tls-unique, anyway, in some of the upcoming
> non-OpenSSL TLS implementations that don't support it.

True enough. Only GnuTLS supports it:
https://www.gnutls.org/manual/html_node/Channel-Bindings.html

> Hmm. That is actually in a section called "Default Channel Binding". And the
> first paragraph says "A default channel binding type agreement process for
> all SASL application protocols that do not provide their own channel binding
> type agreement is provided as follows". Given that, it's not entirely clear
> to me if the requirement to support tls-unique is for all implementations of
> SCRAM, or only those applications that don't provide their own channel
> binding type agreement.

I am not sure, but I get that as tls-unique must be the default if
available, so if it is technically possible to have it we should have it
in priority. If not, then a channel binding type which is supported by
both the server and the client can be chosen.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2018-07-12 13:10:56 Re: Negotiating the SCRAM channel binding type
Previous Message Ashutosh Bapat 2018-07-12 13:03:39 Re: partition pruning doesn't work with IS NULL clause in multikey range partition case