Re: OpenSSL key renegotiation with patched openssl

From: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: OpenSSL key renegotiation with patched openssl
Date: 2009-11-30 16:43:30
Message-ID: 491f66a50911300843g1372208ct83df67f24c09983@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> The discussion I saw suggested that you need such a patch at both ends.
>
>> and likely requires a restart of both postgresql and slony afterwards...
>
> Actually, after looking through the available info about this:
> https://svn.resiprocate.org/rep/ietf-drafts/ekr/draft-rescorla-tls-renegotiate.txt
> I think my comment above is wrong.  It is useful to patch the
> *server*-side library to reject a renegotiation request.  Applying that
> patch on the client side, however, is useless and simply breaks things.
>
>                        regards, tom lane

I've looked at the available patches for openssl, and so far can only
see that ssl3_renegotiate returns 0 if a renegotiation is requested,
which would cause pg to throw an error. Is there another patch that
fixes this ? I would have expected openssl to simply ignore this
request if renegotiation is removed from the library ?

Dave
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hans-Jürgen Schönig 2009-11-30 16:46:45 Re: draft RFC: concept for partial, wal-based replication
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-11-30 16:39:18 Re: Empty dictionary file when creating text search dictionary