| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Cutting support for OpenSSL 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 in 17~? |
| Date: | 2024-03-30 20:59:46 |
| Message-ID: | 551806.1711832386@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I was reminded of this thread by ambient security paranoia. As it
> stands, we require 1.0.2 (but we very much hope that package
> maintainers and others in control of builds don't decide to use it).
> Should we skip 1.1.1 and move to requiring 3 for v17?
I'd be kind of sad if I couldn't test SSL stuff anymore on my
primary workstation, which has
$ rpm -q openssl
openssl-1.1.1k-12.el8_9.x86_64
I think it's probably true that <=1.0.2 is not in any distro that
we still need to pay attention to, but I reject the contention
that RHEL8 is not in that set.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2024-03-30 21:12:44 | Re: Security lessons from liblzma |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-03-30 20:50:26 | Re: Security lessons from liblzma |