Re: SSL patch
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SSL patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 14826.932747024@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Re: SSL patch
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander <mha@sollentuna.net> writes: > I've now finished "polishing off" my old SSL code, and rewritten it to work > with 6.6 (current snapshot). Included is the patch against the cvs tree from > Jul 22nd. Cool. Secure connections are good. > Unfortunatly, in order to allow for negotiated SSL, this patch breaks the > current protocol (meaning old clients will not work with the new server, and > the other way around). I felt it was better to break this here, than to > break the frontend API (which would otherwise have been required). This is *not* cool. Breaking both clients and servers, whether they actually support SSL or not, is a bit much, don't you think? Especially when the way you propose to do it makes it impossible for a server to support both old and new clients: by the time the server finds out the client's protocol version, it's already done something incompatible with old clients. I think there must be some way of signaling SSL support capability without making a backwards-incompatible change in the startup protocol. At a minimum an SSL-enabled server must be able to accept connections from pre-SSL clients. If nothing better comes to mind, we could have SSL-capable servers listen at two port addresses, say 5432 for insecure connections and 5433 for secure ones. But there's probably a better way. BTW, it should be possible for the dbadmin to configure a server to accept *only* secured connections, perhaps from a subset of users/hosts; that would take a new column in pg_hba.conf. Didn't look at your patch closely enough to see if you already did that... regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: