| CARVIEW |
Select Language
HTTP/2 200
server: myracloud
date: Mon, 13 Oct 2025 22:07:06 GMT
content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8
content-length: 5059
vary: accept-encoding
content-encoding: gzip
expires: Mon, 13 Oct 2025 22:07:06 GMT
cache-control: max-age=0
etag: "myra-92fb0724"
php.internals: Re: [VOTE] TLS Peer Verification
Re: [VOTE] TLS Peer Verification
From: Joe Watkins Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 14:21:28 +0000 Subject: Re: [VOTE] TLS Peer Verification References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Groups: php.internals Request: Send a blank email to internals+get-70712@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message
On 12/17/2013 02:02 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:On 12/17/2013 08:56 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:[sorry Rasmus, you will get this twice, accident] I said it wasn't necessarily our problem, proposed some ways we might aid those whose problem it actually is, an update command, maybe host it. Excluding Windows, most users will have it solved by their distros package maintainers, that's pretty clear. We will have to include the file for Windows, and I see no harm in not doing the same for the source distribution either, I do see how not including it can be a problem, don't see how excluding it solves anything. Including it doesn't make it harder to override, it doesn't change that package maintainers will likely be responsible, but it does allow more possibilities of successful execution wherever the source or binary distribution came from. Cheers JoeOn Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Daniel Lowrey <rdlowrey@gmail.com> wrote:Note that the distro maintainers tend to hate when we bundle stuff like this. We have this same situation with the Olsen tz. They much prefer having a single place to update resources that are needed by multiple applications like the ca cert bundle and the Olsen tz db. So, for most of our users (assuming most of our users rely on distro-packaged versions of php) I don't think it actually matters whether we ship the ca bundle or not. The distros are going override this decision and point to the distro-level bundle much like many of them have done with the timezone file. -RasmusOn Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:I wouldn't say it isn't a BC break, as there are a plenty of code out there which could/will break after this change.On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Joe Watkins <krakjoe@php.net> wrote:Regarding the alteration of voting options Joe requested ... I do believe approving the patch without bundling a CA file is a valid option. As Ferenc mentioned there are potential maintenance issues with including a CA file and I do not feel comfortable forcing the hand of the release managers on this point. The vote exists between "yes" and "yes with a bundled file" for this reason to tease out what's best for PHP in this scenario. Please make sure you understand the ramifications of your choice before voting. I do want to preemptively address the idea that not including a CA file would somehow cause disastrous BC breakage. In my opinion this could not be further from the truth. APIs are not changing. The return value is already FALSE with a warning generated on a connection or transfer failure. Code should already have error checking in place for this potential scenario because socket transfers are never guaranteed (maybe your ethernet cable is unplugged). The only difference this patch makes is to expand the reasons why a transfer can return FALSE with an E_WARNING to include "you're doing something dangerous." As far as BC breakage goes, this is as backward-compatible as a BC break could possibly be.On 12/17/2013 12:08 PM, Daniel Lowrey wrote:Don't forget that bundling a CA file also means that take the burden of keeping it up-to-date to our shoulders. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do it, but if we do then we have to make sure that we understand the implications. Even if we take the "easy" path, and select an already existing CA bundle (eg. Mozilla), we have to make sure to always ship the up-to-date version and there could be events, when we would need to create a release only because some CA incident (like what happened with DigiNotar in 2011 which forced the everybody shipping CA bundles to update their bundle to remove this CA from it's list of trusted CAs). As I've said, I'm only stating this so everybody can understand the implications before voting. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - https://tyrael.hugiven that this is a security related change, one could argue thatOkay, but nobody is asking the question "are we allowed to break compatiblity for no good reason", because it's a silly question.securityfixes should be ok to go in a minor version, even if they break BC.This was my thought process. In my mind the RFC is about improving security for users who don't know any better. I'm hoping to avoid the "Are we allowed to break BC?" discussion.Adding a CA file to the distribution is exceedingly simple, but this is not a silver bullet. For example, the Mozilla CA file used by cURL is usually updated three or four times a year. Even when bundling a CA file it would only be a matter of time before a distribution's version was out of date. In the end we can only do so much before users must bear the weight of maintaining an acceptable level of security themselves.So then bundle it, doing something is much better than doing nothing, there are plenty of opportunities to update the cafile with minor versions, the package maintainers will likely solve the stale cafile problem for us on the major distributions, when they see we are actually doing something about it ... It really does not seem sensible to purposefully break compatibility when it can be retained easily, the vote is going to be split with no clear outcome doing no good for anyone. Reduce the options to two if you want to actually move forward. That's enough from me, gonna go find something to break :)- If we don't ship/include a CA bundle, every stream connection for ssl://, https:// or ftps:// resource will fail before the user changes his/her php.ini - even if we do include a CA bundle, there are a bunch of code which connects to https:// urls using self-signed certs, and for some of those, there is no CA file available, so you won't be able to get your code functioning again without rewriting your code to explicitly disable peer verification.Those are BC breaks, and I'm pretty sure that this would/will affect a lot of users. But I do think, that in this case the BC break could be acceptable, so I'm looking forward to the results.
Thread (29 messages)
| « previous | php.internals (#70712) | next » |
|---|