Re: Supporting Windows SChannel as OpenSSL replacement - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From MauMau
Subject Re: Supporting Windows SChannel as OpenSSL replacement
Date
Msg-id 3A579F6D46E24072BF886BC32236035B@maumau
Whole thread Raw
In response to Supporting Windows SChannel as OpenSSL replacement  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>)
Responses Re: Supporting Windows SChannel as OpenSSL replacement  (Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
From: "Heikki Linnakangas" <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>
> Thoughts? While we're at it, we'll probably want to refactor things so 
> that it's easy to support other SSL implementations too, like gnutls.

That may be good because it provides users with choices.  But I wonder if it 
is worth the complexity and maintainability of PostgreSQL code.

* Are SChannel and other libraries more secure than OpenSSL?  IIRC, recently 
I read in the news that GnuTLS had a vulnerability.  OpenSSL is probably the 
most widely used library, and many people are getting more interested in its 
quality.  I expect the quality will improve thanks to the help from The 
Linux foundation and other organizations/researchers.

* Do other libraries get support from commercial vendor product support? 
For example, Safenet Inc., the famous HSM (hardware security module) vendor, 
supports OpenSSL to access the private key stored in its HSM product.  Intel 
offered AES-NI implementation code to OpenSSL community.  I guess OpenSSL 
will continue to be the most functional and obtain the widest adoption and 
support.

Regards
MauMau




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Inaccuracy in VACUUM's tuple count estimates
Next
From: Joe Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: [bug fix] Memory leak in dblink