On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:05:25AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Agreed. The problem was so glaring that I assumed I was not
> understanding it. I have modified this email subject so users will
> hopefully read back in this thread to see the details.
Okay, let's use this new thread then for the follow-up discussion. For
people wondering, this basically refers to the following message from
Bruce and Heikki:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/d01b31f5-0b3e-b69a-1504-a79649d81f46@iki.fi
There are actually two problems which have been touched in this
discussion:
1) A client using libpq may be forced by a rogue server to not use
channel binding even if it is willing to do so. For example, a v11
libpq with a v10 server enters in this category. An idea here would be
to provide an extra connection parameter which allows the client to
reject an access to a server if channel binding is not supported. One
idea is something I mentioned here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180516115923.GB14835%40paquier.xyz
So we could have channel_binding_mode, which has a 'prefer' mode, which
is the actual default we have in the tree, as well as a 'require' mode,
which allows the client to fail connection if a server does not publish
the SCRAM-PLUS mechanism after the initial authentication message
exchange.
2) Allow clients to connect to servers only if they use channel
binding. This goes with a server-side hba configuration, like
scram-sha-256-plus to not allow access to clients in a SCRAM
authentication if they don't have channel binding support.
From a security point of view, 1) is important for libpq, but I am not
much enthusiast about 2) as a whole. The backend has proper support for
channel binding, hence other drivers speaking the protocol could have
their own restriction mechanisms.
I actually touched a bit what's being discussed here as part of the
channel binding thread:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqTRW9qbPSYpWtKJD9A%2BQBd6dS0ePkgrrjbkkG0C10zsBA%40mail.gmail.com
However per what I read this does not cover the need to allow the client
to allow that channel binding *has* to be used depending on its
requirements.
I'd like to mention as well that I touched the topic during the
unconference of PGConf Asia last December:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PGConf.ASIA2017_Developer_Unconference#SCRAM_improvements
Any ideas raised there did not get much enthusiam from the
participants. Magnus and Bruce have participated in the conference,
perhaps you were not at my unconf session..
--
Michael
