(I have't read the patch, or even earlier correspondence in this thread, so I apologise for just jumping in.)
At 2014-09-12 12:50:45 -0300, alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: > > +1 for ignoring sigs. If somebody want to check sigs, that's a > separate step. For what it's worth, although it seems logical to split up cryptographic primitives like this, I think it's widely recognised these days to have contributed to plenty of bad crypto implementations. These seems to be general trend of moving towards higher-level interfaces that require fewer decisions and can be relied upon do the Right Thing. I don't like the idea of ignoring signature verification errors any more than I would like "if somebody wants to check the HMAC before decypting, that's a separate step". Of course, all that is an aside. If the function ever threw an error on signature verification failures, I would strongly object to changing it to ignore such errors for exactly the reasons you mention already. -- Abhijit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
