| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: scram-sha-256 broken with FIPS and OpenSSL 1.0.2 |
| Date: | 2020-09-24 16:28:25 |
| Message-ID: | A8F7BC4D-243A-4C32-87BA-589C46140AD4@yesql.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 24 Sep 2020, at 18:21, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
>
> On 24/09/2020 17:21, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> If we really want to support it (which would require more evidence of it being
>> a problem IMO), using the non-OpenSSL sha256 code would be one option I guess?
>
> That would technically work, but wouldn't it make the product as whole not FIPS compliant? I'm not a FIPS lawyer, but as I understand it the point of FIPS is that all the crypto code is encapsulated in a certified module. Having your own SHA-256 implementation would defeat that.
Doh, of course, I blame a lack of caffeine this afternoon. Having a private
local sha256 implementation using the EVP_* API inside scram-common would
maintain FIPS compliance and ABI compatibility, but would also be rather ugly.
cheers ./daniel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | James Coleman | 2020-09-24 16:51:55 | Incremental sort docs and release announcement |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2020-09-24 16:21:44 | Re: scram-sha-256 broken with FIPS and OpenSSL 1.0.2 |