Re: [VOTE] TLS Peer Verification
| From: | Ferenc Kovacs | Date: | Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:58:41 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [VOTE] TLS Peer Verification | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-70697@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Joe Watkins <krakjoe@php.net> wrote:
> On 12/17/2013 02:03 AM, Daniel Lowrey wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the input -- I'm just happy people are interested in the issue!
>>
>> Let me address a couple of things ...
>>
>> you get essentially a configuration that can not use https at all
>>>
>>
>> I wouldn't say this is the really the case. Users still have access to the
>> same https functionality they've always had. The only difference is that
>> they now must explicitly acknowledge that, "Yes, what I'm doing is
>> insecure. I'm aware of it and I choose to continue anyway by specifying
>> this context option."
>>
>> But it may be against the spirit of the RFC?
>>>
>>
>> :) Yes ... that's kind of what I'm going for. Basically it's my thought
>> that many (most?) people using things like
>> file_get_contents('https://')
>> are completely unaware of this issue in the first place. My thinking here
>> is that instead of not saying anything and just giving these users a false
>> sense of security we should at least make mention of the problem instead
>> of
>> sweeping it under the rug.
>>
>> people would still ignore it
>>>
>>
>> Almost certainly. In fact, users do this routinely with curl_* because
>> they
>> don't know any better.
>>
>> Finally, I think this problem can largely be alleviated with appropriate
>> documentation. Should the RFC pass I'll work to make sure that any peer
>> verification changes are *well-documented* to (hopefully) stem the
>> inevitable storm of bug reports.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Please throw your votes at the TLS Peer Verification proposal:
>>>>
>>>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/tls-peer-verification
>>>>
>>>> Voting closes Dec. 24 ... Happy Holidays!
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what to vote for here, because I like the ideas in the
>>> patch about having a setting for CAfile, which in many distros would by
>>> default enable peer verification and thus make you more secure, but I
>>> don't like the fact that when you compile PHP, you get essentially a
>>> configuration that can not use https at all, since you have no CA file
>>> configured.
>>> I'd like it more if there was an option where if you set cafile or
>>> capath, you get automatic peer verification, but if you don't, you do
>>> not have it. But it may be against the spirit of the RFC?
>>> I know you propose a warning in this case, but judging from the story of
>>> the datetime timezone warning, people would still ignore it. Also
>>> warning is not much help if for some reason you don't know where to get
>>> a cert file. And there's no way to disable peer verification on ini
>>> level.
>>> --
>>> Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
>>> SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
>>> (408)454-6900 ext. 227
>>>
>>>
>>
> Morning Internalz,
>
> Daniel, you have to assume that nobody will even read the manual;
> because they will not. I'm up for making it safer, but not for breaking
> anything at all in a minor version, if we do not bundle the CA file it
> would appear to break a bunch of requests that previously worked, that
> doesn't seem good enough to me.
> We can change the behaviour of the engine, but we cannot change
> the behaviour of users code; if a requests works now, regardless of it's
> security, it must continue to work with the default settings, therefore, I
> suggest that you remove the option to change the behaviour of the engine
> without maintaining the behaviour of users code, if the aim is to make
> these requests more secure by default, then allowing it to fail, by any
> means, defeats the object of making any changes at all.
>
> If I'm wrong, tell me how :)
>
> Cheers
> Joe
>
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
I'm not taking sides, but given that this is a security related change, one
could argue that security fixes should be ok to go in a minor version, even
if they break BC.
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu