On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 06:24:07PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 25 May 2018 17:44:16 EEST, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It seems to me that this is really another sort of thing altogether.
>> Whether or not you want to insist on channel binding is a completely
>> separate thing from which channel binding methods you're willing to
>> use. It seems to me like the most logical thing would be to make
>> these two separate connection options.
>
> Works for me.
OK, I can live with that as well. So we'll go in the direction of two
parameters then:
- scram_channel_binding, which can use "prefer" (default), "require" or
"disable".
- scram_channel_binding_name, developer option to choose the type of
channel binding, with "tls-unique" (default) and "tls-server-end-point".
We could also remove the prefix "scram_". Ideas of names are welcome.
At the end, the core of the proposed patch relies on the fact that it
checks when receiving AUTH_REQ_OK that a full set of SCRAM messages has
happened with the server, up to the point where the client has checked
the server proof that both ends know the same password. So do people
here think that this is a sane apprach? Are there other ideas?
--
Michael
