On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> That sounds like undue optimism to me. Unless somebody's tested that
> Michael's proposed implementation, which uses undocumented OpenSSL
> APIs, actually interoperates properly with a SCRAM + channel binding
> implementation based on some other underlying SSL implementation, we
> can't really know that it's going to work. It's not like we're
> calling SSL_do_the_right_thing_for_channel_binding_thing_per_rfc5929().
> We're calling SSL_do_something_undocumented() and hoping that
> something_undocumented ==
> the_right_thing_for_channel_binding_thing_per_rfc5929. Could be true,
> but without actual interoperability testing it sounds pretty
> speculative to me.
Hm? Python is using that stuff for a certain amount of years now, for
the same goal of providing channel binding for SSL authentication. You
can look at this thread:
https://bugs.python.org/issue12551
So qualifying that as a speculative method sounds a quite hard word to me.
--
Michael
