On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:41 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:45:54PM +0800, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: > >> Is there a reason why we don't have a parameter on the client > >> mirroring ssl_ciphers? > > > > Dunno, do we need one? I am not sure what the cipher negotiation process > > looks like or which side has the freedom to choose. > > I haven't looked into the details, but it seems reasonable that > *either* side should be able to at least define a list of ciphers it > *doens't* want to talk with. > > Do we need it - well, it makes sense for the client to be able to say > "I won't trust 56-bit encryption" before it sends over the password, > imo.. > > > >> That, or just have DEFAULT as being the default (which in current > >> openssl means ALL:!aNULL:!eNULL. > > > > If our default isn't the same as the underlying default, I have to > > question why not. > > Yeah, that's exaclty what I'm questioning here.. > > > But are you sure this "!" notation will work with > > all openssl versions? > > Uh. We have the ! notation in our default *now*. What openssl also > supports is the text "DEFAULT", which is currently the equivalent of > "ALL!aNULL!eNULL". The question, which is valid of course, should be > if "DEFAULT" works with all openssl versions. > > It would seem reasonable it does, but I haven't investigated.
Do we want to change our ssl_ciphers default to 'DEFAULT'? Currently it is 'ALL:!ADH:!LOW:!EXP:!MD5:@STRENGTH'.
Did we ever get anywhere with this? Is this a change we want to do for 9.3? Since nobody seems to have come up with a motivation for not following the openssl default, we probably should?
