On 22/04/2024 10:47, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 22/04/2024 10:19, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 12:43:24AM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> On 19/04/2024 19:48, Jacob Champion wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 6:56 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
>>>>> With direct SSL negotiation, we always require ALPN.
>>>>
>>>> (As an aside: I haven't gotten to test the version of the patch that
>>>> made it into 17 yet, but from a quick glance it looks like we're not
>>>> rejecting mismatched ALPN during the handshake as noted in [1].)
>>>
>>> Ah, good catch, that fell through the cracks. Agreed, the client should
>>> reject a direct SSL connection if the server didn't send ALPN. I'll add that
>>> to the Open Items so we don't forget again.
>>
>> Would somebody like to write a patch for that? I'm planning to look
>> at this code more closely, as well.
>
> I plan to write the patch later today.
Here's the patch for that. The error message is:
"direct SSL connection was established without ALPN protocol negotiation
extension"
That's accurate, but I wonder if we could make it more useful to a user
who's wondering what went wrong. I'd imagine that if the server doesn't
support ALPN, it's because you have some kind of a (not necessarily
malicious) generic SSL man-in-the-middle that doesn't support it. Or
you're trying to connect to an HTTPS server. Suggestions welcome.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)
