On Feb 3, 2010, at 10:16 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Chris Campbell <chris_campbell(at)mac(dot)com> wrote:
>>> The flurry of patches that vendors have recently been making to OpenSSL to address
>>> the potential man-in-the-middle attack during SSL renegotiation have disabled SSL
>>> renegotiation altogether in the OpenSSL libraries. Applications that make use of SSL
>>> renegotiation, such as PostgreSQL, start failing.
>> Should we think about adding a GUC to disable renegotiation until this
>> blows over?
> hmm I wonder if we should not go as far as removing the whole renegotiation code, from the field it seems that there are very very few daemons actually doing that kind forced renegotiation.
There was a discussion about the relevance and consequences of SSL renegotiation on this list back in 2003:
Personally, my production servers have been patched to remove renegotiation completely, and I’m comfortable with the consequences of that for my usage.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-02-03 15:20:52|
|Subject: Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)|
|Previous:||From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner||Date: 2010-02-03 15:16:29|
|Subject: Re: Recent vendor SSL renegotiation patches break PostgreSQL|