On 10/04/17 21:41, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 04/10/2017 09:33 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote:
Thanks for posting the patched HTML. In my opinion, all looks good
except that:
- I will add an extra String (a CSV) to AuthenticationSASL message for
channel binding names, so that message format can remain without changes
when channel binding is implemented. It can be empty.
Note that SCRAM-SHA-256 with channel binding has a different SASL
mechanism name, SRAM-SHA-256-PLUS. No need for a separate flag or
string for channel binding. When support for channel binding is added
to the server, it will advertise two SASL mechanisms in the
AuthenticationSASL message, SCRAM-SHA-256 and SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS. (Or
just SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS, if channel-binding is required).
Channel binding needs to specify actually three things:
- The mechanism, which is indeed suffixed "-PLUS".
- The channel binding name, which is described here:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5056. Types are also IANA-registered (see
https://www.iana.org/assignments/channel-binding-types/channel-binding-types.xhtml).
SCRAM mandates to implement 'tls-unique', but other channel binding
types could be supported (like 'tls-server-end-point' for example).
- The channel binding data, which is channel binding mechanism
dependent, and is sent as part of the client last message.
What I'm talking about here is the second one, the channel binding
type (name).
- If the username used is the one sent in the startup message, rather
than leaving it empty in the client-first-message, I would force it to
be the same as the used in the startuo message.
The problem with that is that the SCRAM spec dictates that the
username must be encoded in UTF-8, but PostgreSQL supports non-UTF-8
usernames.
Or did you mean that, if the username is sent, it must match the one
in the startup packet, but an empty string would always be allowed?
That would be reasonable.
Otherwise we may confuse
some client implementations which would probably consider that as an
error; for one, my implementation would currently throw an error if
username is empty, and I think that's correct.
I'm not sure I follow. The username is sent from client to server, and
currently, the server will ignore it. If you're writing a client
library, it can send whatever it wants. (Although again I would
recommend an empty string, to avoid confusion. Sending the same
username as in the startup packet, as long as it's in UTF-8, seems
reasonable too.)
OK, understood. I will not let then the SCRAM implementation I'm
writing to allow for empty string as the user name, but in the pgjdbc
glue code send "ignore" as the user name or something like that ;P
Thanks for reviewing this! I'll start hacking on code changes to go
with these docs.
Thanks for writing the code :)
Álvaro
--
Álvaro Hernández Tortosa
-----------
<8K>data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
