Re: SSL over Unix-domain sockets - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: SSL over Unix-domain sockets
Date
Msg-id 200801150324.m0F3O6Q27328@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SSL over Unix-domain sockets  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: SSL over Unix-domain sockets  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: SSL over Unix-domain sockets  (Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Conclusions:
> 
> * SSL, even without real authentication, is *way* too expensive to
> enable by default.
> 
> * The extra cost of going across a local TCP connection is measurable,
> but it's insignificant compared to the cost of turning on SSL.  (This
> is on a Fedora 8 kernel BTW ... that result might vary on other
> platforms.)
> 
> So you could make a pretty good case that the answer for DBAs who
> want to prevent spoofing is to disable socket connections in pg_hba.conf
> and force even local connections to come through "hostssl" connections.

Yea, I figured using protected directories for the socket was the
zero-cost solution, and if you have to do SSL, might as well just use
TCP too.  (If you moved the socket file to a protected directory I think
you could use external_pid_file='/tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432' to prevent a spoof
socket file in /tmp.  Should we document that idea?)

> If we do want to apply Peter's patch, I think it needs to be extended so
> that the default behavior on sockets is the same as before, ie, no SSL.
> This could be done by giving libpq an additional connection parameter,
> say "socketsslmode", having the same alternatives as sslmode but
> defaulting to "allow" instead of "prefer".

That seems like it is going to be added confusion; just using the
protected socket diretory or TCP & SSL seems less error-prone.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Cohen
Date:
Subject: Re: Declarative partitioning grammar
Next
From: Jeff Cohen
Date:
Subject: Re: Declarative partitioning grammar