Re: Refuse SSL patch

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
Искать
От
Jon Jensen
Тема
Re: Refuse SSL patch
Дата
Msg-id
Pine.LNX.4.50.0301071703370.19672-100000@louche.swelter.net
Ответ на
Re: Refuse SSL patch (Bruce Momjian)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Refuse SSL patch Jon Jensen <jon@endpoint.com>
Re: Refuse SSL patch Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Refuse SSL patch Jon Jensen <jon@endpoint.com>
Re: Refuse SSL patch Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Refuse SSL patch Jon Jensen <jon@endpoint.com>
Re: Refuse SSL patch Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
Re: Refuse SSL patch Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Refuse SSL patch Jon Jensen <jon@endpoint.com>
Re: Refuse SSL patch Jon Jensen <jon@endpoint.com>
Re: Refuse SSL patch Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Refuse SSL patch Jon Jensen <jon@endpoint.com>
Re: Refuse SSL patchf Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Refuse SSL patchf Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: Refuse SSL patchf Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Refuse SSL patch Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Refuse SSL patch Jon Jensen <jon@endpoint.com>
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > The proposed SSLMODE is a client-side configuration option to supercede
> > REQUIRESSL, which is also a client configuration option. Here's the
> > problem:
> > 
> > 1. The client always tries to connect via SSL if SSL support was compiled 
> > in. There is no way to change this presently.
> > 2. If the server can do SSL *at all*, it negotiates an SSL connection with 
> > the client.
> 
> Oh, that is a key thing I didn't know.  Seems we should just add a libpq
> PREVENTSSL option and be done with it.

That's exactly what my original patch did! :)

Tom thought that having conflicting REFUSESSL and REQUIRESSL directives 
would be confusing, and since I dug up someone's old discussion in the 
list archives of the four possible modes, we could move to that.

> > But on the other hand, we want some control on the server as well -- we
> > may want to disallow SSL connections from a certain IP address, if nothing
> > else just to make sure a client doesn't accidentally use SSL over the
> > local network because someone forgets not to use it. Otherwise we could be 
> > accidentally using SSL on the local network and killing performance. So I 
> > added a 'hostnossl' option to pg_hba.conf, which will allow only non-SSL 
> > connections from certain IP addresses.
> 
> Perhaps your idea of 'hostnossl' in pg_hba.conf is a good one.  That
> way, both client and server would have the ability to say never or only
> SSL. It allows more central control.
> 
> So, in negotiation, that only leaves open the question of what happens
> when none of those are set, and it seems we prefer SSL in such cases. 
> Is that the correct default?
> 
> In fact, once we have 'hostnossl' why do we need PREVENTSSL in libpq?

Because hostnossl is only an authentication control, not a connection 
control. libpq will *always* connect SSL if it can, which guarantees that 
the authentication will fail with hostnossl. We have to have configuration 
options on both ends to make this work.

Jon
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления
От: Jon Jensen
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Refuse SSL patch
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Refuse SSL patchf
FAQ