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>
 <CA+TgmobR1R8q-rT06oWdLw_Kp_i67Uey9b+rWVrrpCJVSDNBFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOYmi+=TB8=yfXoBk=p0k0GPaCD79F8xXcypZFkjKmPKuT0hjQ@mail.gmail.com> <f6833e88-2e21-459d-a661-152ced273c60@iki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <f6833e88-2e21-459d-a661-152ced273c60@iki.fi>
From: Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 16:23:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOYmi+nWKJNihuMpT+ZVTC5-d+pQdACTK7xKhhwAB075EHrOMg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Direct SSL connection with ALPN and HBA rules
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, 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/CAOYmi%2BnWKJNihuMpT%2BZVTC5-d%2BpQdACTK7xKhhwAB075EHrOMg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 2:50=E2=80=AFPM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi=
> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Agreed, although the the security benefits from `requiredirect` are
> pretty vague. It reduces the attack surface, but there are no known
> issues with the 'postgres' or 'direct' negotiation either.

I think reduction in attack surface is a concrete security benefit,
not a vague one. True, I don't know of any exploits today, but that
seems almost tautological -- if there were known exploits in our
upgrade handshake, I assume we'd be working to fix them ASAP?

> Perhaps 'requiredirect' should be renamed to 'directonly'?

If it's agreed that we don't want to require a stronger sslmode for
that sslnegotiation setting, then that would probably be an
improvement. But who is the target user for
`sslnegotiation=3Ddirectonly`, in your opinion? Would they ever have a
reason to use a weak sslmode?

> >> 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=3Drequire", which it IMO really shouldn't.
>
> Yeah, that combination is weird. I think we should forbid it. But that's
> separate from sslnegotiation.

Separate but related, IMO. If we were all hypothetically okay with
gssencmode ignoring `sslmode=3Drequire`, then it's hard for me to claim
that `sslnegotiation=3Drequiredirect` should behave differently. On the
other hand, if we're not okay with that and we'd like to change it,
it's easier for me to argue that `requiredirect` should also be
stricter from the get-go.

Thanks,
--Jacob