Re: Spoofing as the postmaster - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Spoofing as the postmaster
Date
Msg-id 20256.1198788383@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Spoofing as the postmaster  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
Responses Re: Spoofing as the postmaster  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> Sure. But we *do* provide a way to work around it *if you have to*: use
> SSL with trusted certificates. In the large number of cases where you
> *don't* need to worry about it, there's no need to add any extra overhead.

> And if you're going with SSL already, the extra overhead of TCP vs Unix
> sockets shouldn't matter *at all*... So I don't really see a motivation
> for us to support SSL over Unix sockets, if it adds any complexity to
> the code.

Well, the problem with the current behavior is that the client app can
"require SSL", but the request is silently ignored if the connection is
over Unix socket.  So you might think you're secure when you aren't.

I think that the reason we don't support SSL over Unix socket is mainly
that we thought it was useless; but this discussion has exposed reasons
to use it.  So I'm for just eliminating the asymmetry.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Spoofing as the postmaster
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: Spoofing as the postmaster