Re: Should we back-patch SSL renegotiation fixes? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Should we back-patch SSL renegotiation fixes?
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZ+BrQm=3XsVsyp5XPfORJdmfbz8we-_MkJLg+XXiJ=NA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Should we back-patch SSL renegotiation fixes?  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Should we back-patch SSL renegotiation fixes?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Should we back-patch SSL renegotiation fixes?  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> Generally I'd agree that that is a bad thing. But there's really not
> much of a observable behaviour change in this case? Except that
> connections using ssl break less often.

Well, SSL renegotiation exists for a reason: to improve security.
It's not awesome that we're being forced to shut off features that are
designed to improve security.  But it seems we have little choice, at
least until we can support some other SSL implementation (and maybe
not even then).

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Nitpicking: unnecessary NULL-pointer check in pg_upgrade's controldata.c
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Should we back-patch SSL renegotiation fixes?