From: | Mathieu Pellerin <mathieu(at)opengis(dot)ch> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Client/server certificates verification support on Android platform |
Date: | 2025-09-19 10:18:51 |
Message-ID: | CAKOSLFXOxaNG2B9WyZ2B-_KmrL2mHmCpd3agSP6kRAaL0=7YOA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Greetings,
I’m writing with regards to client/server certificates verification support
on Android platform, where storage access is increasingly limited and often
happens through a dedicated system user that differs from the user that
runs applications.
A bit of background: we develop QField, an open source spatial and
surveying application built on top of QGIS focused on mobile devices. While
we support multiple platforms these days, our largest bank of users are on
our original supported platform, namely Android with over 1 million play
store installations.
On that platform, we have long supported the possibility of defining
PostgreSQL connections via a pg_service.conf file users can drop within the
application’s data directory (e.g. <storage
root>/Android/data/ch.opengis.qfield/files) via a USB cable transfer.
However, when users want to define a service that utilizes certificates to
authentication users (
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/libpq-ssl.html#LIBPQ-SSL-CLIENTCERT)
they will hit a permission blockage whereas the owner of the copied file
will often not be the user running the application. This also makes it
virtually impossible to manually tweak the file permission to match the
current u=rw (0600) requirement.
To work around this issue, we have come up with some code which copies the
certificate copied onto the device by the user to another location, where
we then set the file ownership to the current user running the application
and limit the permission to match the requirement (
https://github.com/opengisch/QField/blob/4c7bb7feec00af3bd7e52a522c40a2cd62af69e6/src/app/main.cpp#L294-L305
).
While this leads to successful authentication, we were wondering whether
any thoughts were given by the PostgreSQL community on the possibility to
allow for more relaxed permission conditions through whitelisting specific
location or via environment variables for platforms such as Android where
permission management is not a straightforward as on Linux systems.
For example, in the documentation page linked above, it mentions that
permissions check is not conducted on Windows as the %APPDATA%\postgresql
is presumed secure. That matches relevant code logic which disables
permission check altogether for the windows platform (e.g
https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/1546e17f9d067e714e066fcdd57d5f56c14f4174/src/backend/libpq/be-secure-common.c#L154-L174,
and
https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/1546e17f9d067e714e066fcdd57d5f56c14f4174/src/interfaces/libpq/fe-secure-openssl.c#L1260-L1270
)
Would it make sense for other operating systems beyond Windows to also have
relaxed permissions within specific application-specific folders? On
Android, the application’s data directory would certainly match a similar
set of secure assumptions as the OS restricts its access.
Alternatively, if others on this mailing list have had experience dealing
with client / server certificate authentication of services on Android and
have best practices to share, we’d be more than happy to read those :)
Regards,
Mathieu Pellerin
QField project owner
OPENGIS.ch
--
[image: OG]
<https://link.bulksignature.com/4054a10b-3c19-46a2-9e27-813335d7dbdc>
*Mathieu Pellerin*
Mr. Ordinato
QField Product Owner | UX/UI Expert
Team QField
[image: email]
mathieu(at)opengis(dot)ch
[image: www]
https://opengis.ch
[image: linkedin] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/opengisch/> [image:
mastodon] <https://fosstodon.org/@opengisch> [image: github]
<https://github.com/opengisch/>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2025-09-19 10:44:41 | Re: Client/server certificates verification support on Android platform |
Previous Message | Wim Rouquart | 2025-09-19 09:40:44 | RE: Index (primary key) corrupt? |