Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1urMIv-004qAm-Uu for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2025 19:59:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1urMIv-00HLuq-66 for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2025 19:59:33 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1urMIu-00HLtt-R3 for pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2025 19:59:33 +0000 Received: from smtp.outgoing.loopia.se ([93.188.3.37]) by makus.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1urMIs-0024OZ-1Y for pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2025 19:59:32 +0000 Received: from s807.loopia.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by s807.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A07143DBF0 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2025 21:59:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from s980.loopia.se (unknown [172.22.191.6]) by s807.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFEDF43D2DB; Wed, 27 Aug 2025 21:59:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from s473.loopia.se (unknown [172.22.191.6]) by s980.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC9A022016B3; Wed, 27 Aug 2025 21:59:28 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amavis.loopia.se X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 tagged_above=-999 required=6.2 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: s473.loopia.se (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yesql.se Received: from s981.loopia.se ([172.22.191.6]) by s473.loopia.se (s473.loopia.se [172.22.190.13]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id P7ojRttAF-YC; Wed, 27 Aug 2025 21:59:28 +0200 (CEST) X-Loopia-Auth: user X-Loopia-User: daniel@yesql.se X-Loopia-Originating-IP: 89.255.232.236 Received: from smtpclient.apple (customer-89-255-232-236.stosn.net [89.255.232.236]) (Authenticated sender: daniel@yesql.se) by s981.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5C3DC22B165C; Wed, 27 Aug 2025 21:59:28 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yesql.se; s=loopiadkim1707475645; t=1756324768; bh=I7dAadedQw+22x8Iq//n1s3GvcrR7woF47jE/sCCG3o=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=SaXTuRho62oGVo6IRo78XdXZ0cXLShpWFWqkBgttnWONNhOnmvs1JysOBm4Ky9FBE nPVY78MA7KhYZn6UiFSUIfYSsKg4FMtLuW0QCMuOZOqmOwHUGshXBQQp2riXVeoi9t eju0JVUeo6CoMYoW2riwFIQw1PhiMuZfLuyK00QRwhfQ0rSe69sELC1RmWDsgIdQn8 WPlU60+hTB2G7EIXDwrmj1sfCwkBTAEZ++ugmljpwB5I89yC1Lh80NpKllIyXg/e3k 0cV0qNyKumvm4098W7cIuJdHy/CZzEo7p5d02knLkK3PaTY73JIBb9TUU2aXvsmnSt D7ODJO7HGbiuA== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3776.700.51.11.2\)) Subject: Re: How to configure client-side TLS ciphers for streaming replication? From: Daniel Gustafsson In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2025 21:59:18 +0200 Cc: xx Z , pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8611DCDB-C0C7-4080-9E34-97E19E4F8CF5@yesql.se> References: <743186f112b705eb80ba1d03fc2b41f35356dc5e.camel@cybertec.at> To: Laurenz Albe X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3776.700.51.11.2) List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk > On 26 Aug 2025, at 22:16, Laurenz Albe = wrote: >=20 > On Tue, 2025-08-26 at 20:34 +0800, xx Z wrote: >> Thanks for your suggestion. >> But I still want to know why we can't set "ssl_ciphers" on the client = side. >=20 > I'd say because nobody implemented it, perhaps because nobody felt the = need. I think the former is a highly likely suspect here. >> This is still considered a security issue in some cases, and = PostgreSQL has >> mature capabilities on the master side to implement this = functionality. >=20 > That sounds to me like some moderately clueful security auditor is = looking > for a nit to pick. If you do streaming replication, and you control = the > ciphers on the primary server, what added security benefit do you get = by > controlling the ciphers on the standby server (the client) as well? I would place this above nitpicking, but I also don't have a clear idea = of an attack (if I did I'd fix it..). TLS is riddled with weird cases = involving network middleboxes (usually very enterprisy) so insisting on control = isn't necessarily a bad thing. -- Daniel Gustafsson