Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andrew Gierth wrote:
>> That's easily solved: when the client wants to do a cancel, have it
>> send, in place of the actual cancel key, an integer N and the value
>> HMAC(k,N) where k is the cancel key. Replay is prevented by requiring
>> the value of N to be strictly greater than any previous value
>> successfully used for this session. (Since we already have md5 code,
>> HMAC-MD5 would be the obvious choice.)
> I like this approach.
It's not a bad idea, if we are willing to change the protocol.
> If we don't touch the protocol version, we could in theory at least
> backpatch this as a fix for those who are really concerned about this
> issue.
Huh? How can you argue this isn't a protocol change?
[ thinks for a bit... ] You could make it a change in the cancel
protocol, which is to some extent independent of the main FE/BE
protocol. The problem is: how can the client know whether it's okay to
use this new protocol for cancel?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
