Re: SSL SNI - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jacob Champion
Subject Re: SSL SNI
Date
Msg-id ef3d4b460ae7da59a8811f4e8e8fde0cd38a6cc8.camel@vmware.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to SSL SNI  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 15:09 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 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.

Personally I think there should be a toggle, so that any users for whom
hostnames are potentially sensitive don't have to make that information
available on the wire. Opt-in, to avoid having any new information
disclosure after a version upgrade?

> The Wikipedia page[1] discusses some privacy concerns in the context of 
> web browsing, but it seems there is no principled solution to those.

I think Encrypted Client Hello is the new-and-improved Encrypted SNI,
and it's on the very bleeding edge. You'd need to load a public key
into the client using some out-of-band communication -- e.g. browsers
would use DNS-over-TLS, but it might not make sense for a Postgres
client to use that same system.

NSS will probably be receiving any final implementation before OpenSSL,
if I had to guess, since Mozilla is driving pieces of the
implementation.

--Jacob

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: Trigger execution role
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq