Re: Rejecting weak passwords - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Rejecting weak passwords
Date
Msg-id 13907.1255534249@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Rejecting weak passwords  (Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>)
Responses Re: Rejecting weak passwords  (Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> If you're really intent on making that happen, you can have your
>> password checker plugin reject crypted passwords; we don't need
>> such a questionable rule in core.

> Client software would need to have a standard way to know when to use
> ENCRYPTED PASSWORD or not.

Oh, so you want us to propagate extra support for this blatant security
reduction all over the system too?  No thank you.

This whole line of discussion just proves the point that was made
originally: it would be a lot better to do whatever checking you want
done on the client side, rather than risk transmitting unencrypted
passwords.  If you are going to imagine that client-side software knows
about such a GUC, you might as well imagine that they have cracklib
built in.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Marko Kreen
Date:
Subject: Re: Rejecting weak passwords
Next
From: Dave Page
Date:
Subject: Re: Rejecting weak passwords