SSL SNI - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject SSL SNI
Date
Msg-id 7289d5eb-62a5-a732-c3b9-438cee2cb709@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: SSL SNI  (Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>)
Re: SSL SNI  (Jesse Zhang <sbjesse@gmail.com>)
Re: SSL SNI  (Jacob Champion <pchampion@vmware.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
A customer asked about including Server Name Indication (SNI) into the 
SSL connection from the client, so they can use an SSL-aware proxy to 
route connections.  There was a thread a few years ago where this was 
briefly discussed but no patch appeared.[0]  I whipped up a quick patch 
and it did seem to do the job, so I figured I'd share it here.

The question I had was whether this should be an optional behavior, or 
conversely a behavior that can be turned off, or whether it should just 
be turned on all the time.

Technically, it seems pretty harmless.  It adds another field to the TLS 
handshake, and if the server is not interested in it, it just gets ignored.

The Wikipedia page[1] discusses some privacy concerns in the context of 
web browsing, but it seems there is no principled solution to those. 
The relevant RFC[2] "recommends" that SNI is used for all applicable TLS 
connections.


[0]: 
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAPPwrB_tsOw8MtVaA_DFyOFRY2ohNdvMnLoA_JRr3yB67Rggmg%40mail.gmail.com
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication
[2]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6066#section-3

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ranier Vilela
Date:
Subject: Re: Possible dereference after null check (src/backend/executor/ExecUtils.c)
Next
From: vignesh C
Date:
Subject: Re: logical replication seems broken