| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: SCRAM with channel binding downgrade attack |
| Date: | 2018-10-05 14:53:34 |
| Message-ID: | b0bed5b2-2ab7-764e-437d-613d5094294f@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
On 23/05/2018 08:46, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> "tls-unique" and "tls-server-end-point" are overly technical to users.
> They don't care which one is used, there's no difference in security.
A question was raised about this in a recent user group meeting.
When someone steals the server certificate from the real database server
and sets up a MITM with that certificate, this would pass
tls-server-end-point channel binding, because both the MITM and the real
server have the same certificate. But with tls-unique they would have
different channel binding data, so the channel binding would detect this.
Is that not correct?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Khandekar | 2018-10-05 14:58:00 | Re: TupleTableSlot abstraction |
| Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2018-10-05 14:34:34 | Re: Libpq support to connect to standby server as priority |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2018-10-05 17:01:41 | Re: SCRAM with channel binding downgrade attack |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2018-10-04 06:49:28 | Re: https://apt.postgresql.org/ redirects to a MediaWiki error |