Re: WIP: SCRAM authentication

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Stephen Frost
Тема Re: WIP: SCRAM authentication
Дата
Msg-id 20150812203732.GN3685@tamriel.snowman.net
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: WIP: SCRAM authentication  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: WIP: SCRAM authentication  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Robert,

* Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > As for the notion of dropping md5 from 9.6 or even forcing it to be
> > one-or-the-other on a per-role basis, ...
>
> Please don't conflate those two things.  They are radically different
> in terms of the amount of upgrade pain that they cause.  The first one
> would be completely insane.

Thanks for the clarification.  I had gotten the (apparently mistaken)
impression[1] that there was some consideration for a hard break from
one release to the next to move from md5 to SCRAM.

Would be great to get comments on the other comments, specifically that
adding SCRAM's password verifier won't seriously change the security of
a user's account or password based on an attack vector where the
contents of pg_authid is compromised.  I do agree with the general
concern that the additional complexity involved in supporting multiple
password verifiers may result in bugs, and likely security ones, but I
really expect the larger risk to be from the SCRAM implementation itself
than how we get data into and back out of our own catalogs.

Thanks!
Stephen

[1]: CA+TgmoYQ=8BR87xgGkEWs8HJSe3KQh5v4fq+bZ2SAZhAnH3MtQ@mail.gmail.com

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Peter Geoghegan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6
Следующее
От: Andres Freund
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6