Web Security: SHA1 SSL Deprecated

You may not be aware that the mechanism used to fingerprint the SSL certificates that  keep your access to websites encrypted and secure is changing. The old method, known as SHA1 is being deprecated – meaning it will no longer be supported. As per January 2016 various vendors will no longer support creating certificates with SHA1, and browsers show warnings when they encounter an old SHA1 certificate. Per January 2017 browsers will reject old certificates.

The new signing method, known as SHA2, has been available for some time. Users have had a choice of signing methods up until now, but there are still many sites using old certificates out there. You may want to check the security on any SSL websites you own or run!

To ensure your users’ security and privacy, force https across your entire website, not just e-commerce or other sections. You may have noticed this move on major websites over the last few years.

For more information on the change from SHA1 to SHA2 you can read:

To test if your website is using a SHA1 or SHA2 certificate you can use one of the following tools:

Open Query also offers a Security Review package, in which we check on a broad range of issues in your system’s front-end and back-end and provide you with an assessment and recommendations. This is most useful if you are looking at a form of security certification.

Motivation to Migrate RDBMS

http://www.itnews.com/article/3004953/use-oracles-database-watch-out-for-this-dec-1-deadline.html

Companies that use a standard edition of Oracle’s database software should be aware that a rapidly approaching deadline could mean increased licensing costs.

Speaking from experience (at both MySQL AB and Open Query), typically, licensing/pricing changes such as these act as a motivator for migrations.

Migrations are a nuisance (doesn’t matter from/to what platform) and are best avoided as they’re intrinsically painful, costly and time-consuming. Smart companies know this.

When asked in generic terms, we generally recommend against migrations (even to MySQL/MariaDB) for the above-mentioned practical and business reasons. There are also technical reasons. I’ll list a few:

  • application, query and schema design tends to be most tuned to a particular RDBMS, usually the one the main developer(s) are familiar with. Features are used in a certain way, and the original target platform (even if non deliberate) is likely to execute most efficiently;
  • RDBMS choice drives hardware/network architecture. A migration should also include a re-think of this, to make optimal use of the database platform;
  • it’s quite rare (but not unheard of!) for an application to perform better on another platform, without putting a lot of extra work in. If extra work is on the table, then the original DB platform should also be considered as a valid option;
  • related to other points: a desire to migrate might be based on employees’ expertise with a particular platform rather than this particular application’s intrinsic suitability to that platform. While that can be a valid reason, it should be recognised as the actual reason as there are obviously cost/effort implications in terms of migration cost and other options such as training can be considered.
Nevertheless, a company that’s really annoyed by a vendor’s attitude can opt for the migration route, as they may decide it’s the path of less pain (and lower cost) in the long(er) term.

We do occasionally guide and assist with migrations, if after review it looks like a viable and sensible direction to take.

Slow Query Log Rotation

Some time ago, Peter Boros at Percona wrote this post: Rotating MySQL slow logs safely. It contains good info, such as that one should use the rename method for rotation (rather than copytruncate), and then connect to mysqld and issue a FLUSH LOGS (rather than send a SIGHUP signal).

So far so good. What I do not agree with is the additional construct to prevent slow queries from being written during log rotation. The author’s rationale is that if too many items get written while the rotation is in process, this can block threads. I understand this, but let’s review what actually happens.

Indeed, if one were to do lots of writes to the slow query log in a short space of time, a write could block while waiting.

Is the risk of this occurring greater during a logrotate operation? I doubt it. A FLUSH LOGS has to close and open the file. While there is no file open, no writes can occur anyhow and they may be stored in the internal buffer of the lowlevel MySQL code for this.

In any case, if there is such a high write rate, that is an issue in itself: it is not useful to have the slow query log write that fast. Instead, you’d up the long_query_time and min_examined_rows variables to reduce the effectively “flow rate”. It’s always best to resolve an underlying issue rather than its symptom(s).

Using Persistent Memory in RDBMS

People at Intel started the pmem library project some time ago, it’s open to the broader community at GitHub and  other developers, including Linux kernel devs, are actively involved.

While the library does allow interaction with an SSD using a good-old-filesystem, we know that addressing SSD through SATA or SAS is very inefficient. That said, the type of storage architecture that SSD uses does require significant management for write levelling and verifying so that the device as a whole actually lasts, and your data is kept safe: in theory you could write to an NVRAM chip, and not know when it didn’t actually store your data properly.

But there are other technologies, such as Memristor (RRAM) and Phase Change Memory (PCM, PRAM). Numonyx (founded by Intel and others, since acquired by Micron) was one of the companies developing PCM some years ago, to the point of some commercial applications. Somewhat oddly (in my opinion), Micron ditched their PCM line in 2014 focusing more on 3D NAND technology. In 2015, Intel and Micron announced that they were working on something called 3D XPoint but Micron denies that it’s based on PCM.

I like the concept of PCM because it has a lot of advantages over NAND technology. It’s very stable, doesn’t “bleed” to adjacent memory cells, if it writes correctly it’s stored correctly, and it’s fast. Not as fast as ordinary RAM, but it’s persistent! What I’ve been holding out for is just a small amount of PCM or similar storage in computers, phones, tablets and e-book readers.

In small mobile devices the advantage would be vastly reduced power consumption. ARM processors are able to put entire sections of the processor in standby to save power, but RAM needs to be powered and refreshed regularly. So with persistent memory, a device could maintain state while using hardly any power.

For RDBMS such as MySQL and MariaDB, persistent memory could be used for the InnoDB log files and other relatively small state information that needs to be persistently kept. So this storage would behave likely memory and be addressed as such (pmem uses mmap), but be persistent. So you could commit a transaction, your fsync is very quick, and the transactional information has been stored in a durable fashion. Very shiny, right?

It doesn’t need to be large, something like 512MB would be ample for RDBMS, and possibly much less for mobile devices.

I still reckon persistent memory space has huge potential – and I mention the mobile devices because that’s obviously a larger market. Previously Micron did work with Nokia on using NVM in phones, but as we all know Nokia was acquired and the Micron focus changed. I find the current state of it all quite disappointing, but I do hope the various players in this field will soon focus on this again properly and get the tech out there to be used!

If you happen to know of any current developments and activities, I’d like to hear about it!

ARIN Reaches IPv4 Depletion | Team ARIN

ARIN is the American Registry for Internet Numbers, the organisation that hands out the blocks IP addresses.

Each region has its own, for instance Australia/Pacific has APNIC. Naturally, they work very closely together.

Open Query can assist you with planning and deployment of IPv6 capabilities on your front-end servers, as well as at the back-end if you wish. Not all hosting providers support IPv6, but many good ones do. MySQL/MariaDB can operate in a native IPv6 or dual stack environment. Open Query enabled its own front-end servers for IPv6 a number of years ago already.

http://teamarin.net/2015/09/24/arin-reaches-ipv4-depletion/


ARIN’s IPv4 free pool has depleted. This is an important milestone for the Internet as now we now usher in the age of IPv6.

[…]

ARIN has reached depletion of the general IPv4 free pool today, 24 September 2015. We’ve been talking about the inevitability of IPv4 depletion for many years and have been educating the community about the need to get IPv6 resources and prepare public facing services for the IPv6 Internet, and now is the time to make sure you are taking steps toward preparing for IPv6 as soon as possible.

on ORDER BY optimization | Domas Mituzas

http://dom.as/2015/07/30/on-order-by-optimization/

An insightful exploration by Domas (Facebook) on how some of the MySQL optimiser’s decision logic is sometimes naive, in this case regarding ORDER BY optimisation.

Quite often, “simple” logic can work better than complex logic as chasing all the corner cases can just make things worse – but sometimes, logic can be too simple.

Everything must be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.
— Albert Einstein / Roger Sessions

Copyright on APIs and header files? | Upstarta

Removal and Deprecation in MySQL 5.7 | MySQL Server Blog

http://mysqlserverteam.com/removal-and-deprecation-in-mysql-5-7/

A useful overview of options, syntax and tools that have been deprecated or removed for the upcoming MySQL 5.7 release.

More Cores or Higher Clock Speed?

This is a little quiz (could be a discussion). I know what we tend to prefer (and why), but we’re interested in hearing additional and other opinions!

Given the way MySQL/MariaDB is architected, what would you prefer to see in a new server, more cores or higher clock speed? (presuming other factors such as CPU caches and memory access speed are identical).

For example, you might have a choice between

  • 2x 2.4GHz 6 core, or
  • 2x 3.0GHz 4 core

which option would you pick for a (dedicated) MySQL/MariaDB server, and why?

And, do you regard the “total speed” (N cores * GHz) as relevant in the decision process? If so, when and to what degree?

mysql-cli on Kickstarter

Open Query is supporting the mysql-cli Kickstarter project (for MySQL and MariaDB) by Amjith Ramanujam who already successfully completed a similar tool for PostgreSQL.

It is a new MySQL client with Auto-Completion and Syntax Highlighting. From the info provided, it’s Python based, thus portable, and can be installed without root access. Could be a very useful tool. The good old mysql command line client does lack some things, yet a relatively low-level command line client is often useful for remote tasks (as opposed to graphical tools) so we reckon it’s good that this realm gets a bit of attention!