Re: libpq should not be using SSL_CTX_set_client_cert_cb
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: libpq should not be using SSL_CTX_set_client_cert_cb |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 6897.1274928631@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: libpq should not be using SSL_CTX_set_client_cert_cb (Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au> writes: > On 27/05/10 10:21, Tom Lane wrote: >> What will happen as things stand is that all the certs get loaded >> into a common pool. That's not too horrible as long as there are >> not actual conflicts, but it could mean that for example some >> connections trust CA certs that the app programmer expected to only >> be trusted for other connections. I did arrange (and test) that the >> client cert and key are local to each connection, but leakage of >> trusted root certs is a different story. >> We could avoid this problem if we were willing to set up a separate >> SSL_context for each connection, but I'm not sure if it's worth that. >> The scenario where a single application process is managing multiple >> distinct sets of trusted certs seems a bit far-fetched anyway. > OpenSSL really doesn't seem to be designed for multiple truly > independent SSL contexts. The SSL context stuff has clearly been hacked > on after the fact to a library that started out having only one global > state, and it's pretty incomplete. I'm honestly not sure it's worth > trying to allow per-connection trust going, especially as (AFAIK) > there's no evidence that anybody _wants_ per-client-connection SSL trust > anyway. Precisely. I'm not excited about doing anything about this in the near term, or even the not-so-near term. I just wanted to get the information into the PG archives in case it ever does become significant. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: