Re: RFC 9266: Channel Bindings for TLS 1.3 support

From: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Cc: "* Neustradamus *" <neustradamus(at)hotmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: RFC 9266: Channel Bindings for TLS 1.3 support
Date: 2025-11-21 16:18:41
Message-ID: CAOYmi+ku23HywDuYpQC7zcwGLFoiqm9-HpdpVErrUrpWQ3ZFug@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 12:46 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> If I understood the incident correctly, the attacker managed to somehow
> obtain a valid TLS certificate for the victim domain. They used that to
> perform a MITM attack. They did not have the server's private key. (Or
> if they did, they did not use that for the attack).

Oh! Thank you for pointing that out. Yeah, having the private key for
*a* host certificate shouldn't help you if it doesn't have the same
public fingerprint as the one in use at the peer. (I'm not sure I
really internalized that distinction before.)

--Jacob

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message 河田達也 2025-11-21 16:25:58 Re: [PATCH] Add memory usage reporting to VACUUM VERBOSE
Previous Message Tom Lane 2025-11-21 16:16:21 Re: change default default_toast_compression to lz4?