public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Jacob Champion <[email protected]>
To: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Paquier <[email protected]>
Cc: Postgres hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Direct SSL connection with ALPN and HBA rules
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:13:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOYmi+=TB8=yfXoBk=p0k0GPaCD79F8xXcypZFkjKmPKuT0hjQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmobR1R8q-rT06oWdLw_Kp_i67Uey9b+rWVrrpCJVSDNBFQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAOYmi+kbYPX78nu0k7OODxUhoD6H1OXdugiMK1z9Nn33G-qdcQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<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>
<[email protected]>
<CAOYmi+kfsRfopQRTuJwpsO50Urq=-gwYDJ1fWNkDr3oYM1wdjA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+TgmoZspODpL6AYbANpffhbF+Q12xo1pHXrR9ZSkYfEQWpP3w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAOYmi+k3x-aKiVzyLfzdxFdmcBmVD8UvcwfB075BkNqyA1aa9w@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+TgmobR1R8q-rT06oWdLw_Kp_i67Uey9b+rWVrrpCJVSDNBFQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 10:35 AM Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 that comes down to the debate upthread, and whether you think
it's a performance tweak or a security feature. My take on it is,
`direct` mode is performance, and `requiredirect` is security.
(Especially since, with the current implementation, requiredirect can
slow things down?)
> I think it's pretty questionable in 2024 whether sslmode=allow and
> sslmode=prefer 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?
I agree, but I more or less lost the battle at [1]. Like Matthias
mentioned in [2]:
> I'm not sure about this either. The 'gssencmode' option is already
> quite weird in that it seems to override the "require"d priority of
> "sslmode=require", which it IMO really shouldn't.
Thanks,
--Jacob
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOYmi%2B%3DcnV-8V8TndSkEF6Htqa7qHQUL_KnQU8-DrT0Jjnm3_Q%40mail...
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEze2Wi9j5Q3mRnuoD2Hr%3DeOFV-cMzWAUZ88YmSXSwsiJLQOWA%40mail.g...
view thread (28+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Direct SSL connection with ALPN and HBA rules
In-Reply-To: <CAOYmi+=TB8=yfXoBk=p0k0GPaCD79F8xXcypZFkjKmPKuT0hjQ@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox