Re: Bogus error message about private key (not a bug). - Mailing list pgsql-bugs
From | Stefanos Harhalakis |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Bogus error message about private key (not a bug). |
Date | |
Msg-id | 200411162243.09419.v13@it.teithe.gr Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Bogus error message about private key (not a bug). (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
List | pgsql-bugs |
On Tuesday 16 November 2004 21:06, Tom Lane wrote: > Stefanos Harhalakis <v13@priest.com> writes: > > I believe that the checks in src/backend/libpq/be-secure.c:653 should be > > performed in a different order (first the access permissions and then the > > owner of the key) just to give a more appropriate message. > > Changing the order of the tests wouldn't change the message, though, > 'cause there's just one message. Are you suggesting more than one > message? Not sure it's worth the trouble ... I meant the next error message which says "could not load private key file". This is from SSL_CTX_use_PrivateKey_file() so something like this: --- be-secure.c.orig 2004-11-16 22:30:35.000000000 +0200 +++ be-secure.c 2004-11-16 22:32:42.000000000 +0200 @@ -650,6 +650,11 @@ (errcode_for_file_access(), errmsg("could not access private key file \"%s\": %m", fnbuf))); + if (!SSL_CTX_use_PrivateKey_file(SSL_context, fnbuf, SSL_FILETYPE_PEM)) + ereport(FATAL, + (errmsg("could not load private key file \"%s\": %s", + fnbuf, SSLerrmessage()))); + if (!S_ISREG(buf.st_mode) || (buf.st_mode & (S_IRWXG | S_IRWXO)) || buf.st_uid != getuid()) ereport(FATAL, @@ -658,11 +663,6 @@ fnbuf), errdetail("File must be owned by the database user and must have no permissions for \"group\" or \"other\"."))); - if (!SSL_CTX_use_PrivateKey_file(SSL_context, fnbuf, SSL_FILETYPE_PEM)) - ereport(FATAL, - (errmsg("could not load private key file \"%s\": %s", - fnbuf, SSLerrmessage()))); - if (!SSL_CTX_check_private_key(SSL_context)) ereport(FATAL, (errmsg("check of private key failed: %s", could produce a more meaningfull message. (this places the SSL_CTX_use_PrivateKey_file() call before the permissions check, but as you said, this may not worth the trouble. There is one more thing. Perhaps you may want to apply this: --- be-secure.c.orig 2004-11-16 22:30:35.000000000 +0200 +++ be-secure.c.2 2004-11-16 22:35:45.000000000 +0200 @@ -651,7 +651,7 @@ errmsg("could not access private key file \"%s\": %m", fnbuf))); if (!S_ISREG(buf.st_mode) || (buf.st_mode & (S_IRWXG | S_IRWXO)) || - buf.st_uid != getuid()) + (buf.st_uid != getuid() && buf.st_uid)) ereport(FATAL, (errcode(ERRCODE_CONFIG_FILE_ERROR), errmsg("unsafe permissions on private key file \"%s\"", so that it will be possible to have a private key owned by root with strict permissions where the access can be controled by ACLs. Using the existing method it is not possible to have root owner and give postgresql (and possibly others too) read permissions to the key using ACLs. I believe that there will be cases where a server has one certificate only, for all of its services, and the same private key will must be shared between postgresql, apache, sendmail and possibly other programs. <<V13>>
pgsql-bugs by date: