MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ZiH7vHwEJeRKHlST@paquier.xyz> <c786e226-4039-4522-ba07-92501fce9b6a@iki.fi>
 <CAOYmi+kbYPX78nu0k7OODxUhoD6H1OXdugiMK1z9Nn33G-qdcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <a0983295-67ae-487e-84e3-6e1148af3a25@iki.fi> <ZiYPmUZjcQtPz2j7@paquier.xyz>
 <feebbeee-df5f-484f-b07e-062bd0230bd2@iki.fi> <ZidKMB1tcgM3bzFZ@paquier.xyz>
 <CAOYmi+n57x+8DVi9J+dGmFQo+2Eb+bg_+geH=jqfh3E=NWHfOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoaLpDVY2ywqQUfxvKEQZ+nwkabcw_f=i4Zyivt9CLjcmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOYmi+=sj+1uydS0NR4nYzw-LRWp3Q-s5speBug5UCLSPMbvGA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5a79ed71-b365-4b20-80bc-9c2bf97bf84b@iki.fi> <CAOYmi+kfsRfopQRTuJwpsO50Urq=-gwYDJ1fWNkDr3oYM1wdjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoZspODpL6AYbANpffhbF+Q12xo1pHXrR9ZSkYfEQWpP3w@mail.gmail.com> <CAOYmi+k3x-aKiVzyLfzdxFdmcBmVD8UvcwfB075BkNqyA1aa9w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOYmi+k3x-aKiVzyLfzdxFdmcBmVD8UvcwfB075BkNqyA1aa9w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 13:35:12 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+TgmobR1R8q-rT06oWdLw_Kp_i67Uey9b+rWVrrpCJVSDNBFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Direct SSL connection with ALPN and HBA rules
To: Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, 
	Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmobR1R8q-rT06oWdLw_Kp_i67Uey9b%2BrWVrrpCJVSDNBFQ%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 12:28=E2=80=AFPM Jacob Champion
<jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 9:17=E2=80=AFAM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.co=
m> wrote:
> > It is difficult to imagine a world in which we have both requiredirect
> > and forcedirect and people are not confused.
>
> Yeah... Any thoughts on a better scheme? require_auth was meant to
> lock down overly general authentication; maybe a require_proto or
> something could do the same for the transport?

I don't understand the difference between the two sets of semantics
myself, so I'm not in a good position to comment.

> I hate that we have so many options that most people don't need but
> take precedence, especially when they're based on the existence of
> magic third-party environmental cues (e.g. Kerberos caches). And it
> was nice that we got sslrootcert=3Dsystem to turn on strong security and
> reject nonsensical combinations. If someone sets `requiredirect` and
> leaves the default sslmode, or chooses a weaker one... Is that really
> useful to someone?

Maybe I'm missing something here, but why doesn't sslnegotiation
override sslmode completely? Or alternatively, why not remove
sslnegotiation entirely and just have more sslmode values? I mean
maybe this shouldn't happen categorically, but if I say I want to
require a direct SSL connection, to me that implies that I don't want
an indirect SSL connection, and I really don't want a non-SSL
connection.

I think it's pretty questionable in 2024 whether sslmode=3Dallow and
sslmode=3Dprefer make any sense at all. I don't think it would be crazy
to remove them entirely. But I certainly don't think that they should
be allowed to bleed into the behavior of new, higher-security
configurations. Surely if I say I want direct SSL, it's that or
nothing, right?

--=20
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com