> On 2 Aug 2020, at 09:05, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 11:48:23PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:42:16PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> Somewhat on topic though, 1.1.1 adds a RAND_priv_bytes function for random
>>> numbers that are supposed to b
On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 11:48:23PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:42:16PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> Somewhat on topic though, 1.1.1 adds a RAND_priv_bytes function for random
>> numbers that are supposed to be private and extra protected via it's own
>> DRBG.
>> May
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:42:16PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Somewhat on topic though, 1.1.1 adds a RAND_priv_bytes function for random
> numbers that are supposed to be private and extra protected via it's own DRBG.
> Maybe we should use that for SCRAM salts etc in case we detect 1.1.1?
M
> On 26 Jul 2020, at 09:06, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 11:31:38PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> Thanks for picking it up!
>
> For the archives, the patch set has been applied as ce4939f and
> 15e4419 on HEAD. Thanks, Noah.
Indeed, thanks!
>>> Do you happen to know
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 11:31:38PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Thanks for picking it up!
For the archives, the patch set has been applied as ce4939f and
15e4419 on HEAD. Thanks, Noah.
> That's a good question. I believe that if one actually do use RAND_cleanup as
> a re-seeding mechanism
> On 22 Jul 2020, at 07:00, Noah Misch wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 02:13:32PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> The silver lining here is that while OpenSSL nooped RAND_cleanup, they also
>> changed what is mixed into seeding so we are still not sharing a sequence.
>> To
>> fix this, ch
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 10:00:20PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> These look good. I'll push them on Saturday or later. I wondered whether to
> do both RAND_cleanup() and RAND_poll(), to purge all traces of the old seed on
> versions supporting both. Since that would strictly (albeit negligibly)
> i
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 02:13:32PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> The silver lining here is that while OpenSSL nooped RAND_cleanup, they also
> changed what is mixed into seeding so we are still not sharing a sequence. To
> fix this, changing the RAND_cleanup call to RAND_poll should be enough
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 10:36:53PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> I think the original intention was to handle older OpenSSL versions where
> multiple successful RAND_poll calls were required for RAND_status to succeed,
> the check working as an optimization since a failing RAND_poll would rende
> On 21 Jul 2020, at 22:00, David Steele wrote:
>
> On 7/21/20 3:44 PM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> On 21 Jul 2020, at 17:31, David Steele wrote:
>>> On 7/21/20 8:13 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
Another thing that stood out when reviewing this code is that we optimize
for
RAND_p
On 7/21/20 3:44 PM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 21 Jul 2020, at 17:31, David Steele wrote:
On 7/21/20 8:13 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
Another thing that stood out when reviewing this code is that we optimize for
RAND_poll failing in pg_strong_random, when we already have RAND_status
checkin
> On 21 Jul 2020, at 17:31, David Steele wrote:
> On 7/21/20 8:13 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> Another thing that stood out when reviewing this code is that we optimize for
>> RAND_poll failing in pg_strong_random, when we already have RAND_status
>> checking for a sufficiently seeded RNG for
On 7/21/20 8:13 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
After forking we call RAND_cleanup in fork_process.c to force a re-seed to
ensure that two backends cannot share sequence. OpenSSL 1.1.0 deprecated
RAND_cleanup, and contrary to how they usually leave deprecated APIs working
until removed, they decide
After forking we call RAND_cleanup in fork_process.c to force a re-seed to
ensure that two backends cannot share sequence. OpenSSL 1.1.0 deprecated
RAND_cleanup, and contrary to how they usually leave deprecated APIs working
until removed, they decided to silently make this call a noop like below:
14 matches
Mail list logo
