Re: OpenSSL key renegotiation with patched openssl - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dave Cramer
Subject Re: OpenSSL key renegotiation with patched openssl
Date
Msg-id 491f66a50911300843g1372208ct83df67f24c09983@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: OpenSSL key renegotiation with patched openssl  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> The discussion I saw suggested that you need such a patch at both ends.
>
>> and likely requires a restart of both postgresql and slony afterwards...
>
> Actually, after looking through the available info about this:
> https://svn.resiprocate.org/rep/ietf-drafts/ekr/draft-rescorla-tls-renegotiate.txt
> I think my comment above is wrong.  It is useful to patch the
> *server*-side library to reject a renegotiation request.  Applying that
> patch on the client side, however, is useless and simply breaks things.
>
>                        regards, tom lane

I've looked at the available patches for openssl, and so far can only
see that ssl3_renegotiate returns 0 if a renegotiation is requested,
which would cause pg to throw an error. Is there another patch that
fixes this ? I would have expected openssl to simply ignore this
request if renegotiation is removed from the library ?

Dave
>


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Empty dictionary file when creating text search dictionary
Next
From: Hans-Jürgen Schönig
Date:
Subject: Re: draft RFC: concept for partial, wal-based replication