Re: Unfriendly handling of pg_hba SSL options with SSL off
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Unfriendly handling of pg_hba SSL options with SSL off |
Дата | |
Msg-id | BANLkTinote9fDF4qeAGR7S=z-TWNKgNA4A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Unfriendly handling of pg_hba SSL options with SSL off (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Unfriendly handling of pg_hba SSL options with SSL off
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 19:18, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 18:59, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >>> It's not clear to me what behavior you are proposing. Would we >>> disregard the hostssl line or treat it as an error? > >> It would absolutely have to be treat it as an error. another option >> would be to throw a more specific warning at that place, and keep the >> rest of the code the same. > >> We can't *ignore* hostssl rows in ssl=off mode, that would be an easy >> way for an admin to set up a system they thought was secure but >> isn't... > > No, I don't see that it's a security hole. What would happen if the > line is ignored is you couldn't make connections with it. I think you > are positing that it'd be a potential security problem if a connection > attempt fell through that line and then succeeded with some later line > that had less-desirable properties --- but if your pg_hba.conf contents > are like that, you already have issues, because a non-SSL-enabled client > is going to reach that later line anyway. Good point. > Nonetheless, it's extremely confusing to the admin to ignore such a > line, and that's not a good thing in any security-sensitive context. Yeah, better make any misconfiguration very clear - let's throw an error. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: