Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> And in the end, if we set values like this from PG --- whether
>> hard-wired or via a GUC --- the SSL library people will have exactly
>> the same perspective with regards to *our* values. And not without
>> reason; we were forcing very obsolete settings up till recently,
>> because nobody had looked at the issue for a decade. I see no reason
>> to expect that that history won't repeat itself.
> The best part would be if we could just leave it up to the SSL
> library, but at least the openssl one doesn't have an API that lets us
> do that, right? We *have* to pick something...
As far as protocol version goes, I think our existing coding basically
says "prefer newest available version, but at least TLS 1.0". I think
that's probably a reasonable approach.
If the patch exposed a GUC that set a "minimum" version, rather than
calling out specific acceptable protocols, it might be less risky.
regards, tom lane