On 2017-04-10 20:28:27 +0200, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote:
> On 10/04/17 13:02, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > On 04/10/2017 12:39 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote:
> > > - I think channel binding support should be added. SCRAM brings security
> > > improvements over md5 and other simpler digest algorithms. But where it
> > > really shines is together with channel binding. This is the only method
> > > to prevent MITM attacks. Implementing it should not very difficult.
> > > There are several possible channel binding mechanisms, but the mandatory
> > > and probably more typical one is 'tls-unique' which basically means
> > > getting the byte array from the TLSfinish() message and comparing it
> > > with the same data sent by the client. That's more or less all it takes
> > > to implement it. So I would go for it.
> > We missed the boat for PostgreSQL 10. You're right that it probably
> > wouldn't be difficult to implement, but until there's a concrete patch
> > to discuss, that's a moot point.
> Really? That's a real shame.... I know we're very late in the CF cycle
> but, again, this would be a real shame.
That can equally be said about about a lot of features. If we don't
stop at some point... Also, we're not late in the CF cycle, the CF cycle
for v10 is over. It's not like the non-existance of channel binding
removes previously existing features, or makes SCRAM useless.
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: