Re: Encrypting pg_shadow passwords - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim Mercer
Subject Re: Encrypting pg_shadow passwords
Date
Msg-id 20010626085627.A14179@reptiles.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Encrypting pg_shadow passwords  (Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh@pop.jaring.my>)
Responses Re: Re: Encrypting pg_shadow passwords  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Encrypting pg_shadow passwords  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 02:34:51PM +0800, Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
> At 12:51 AM 26-06-2001 -0400, Jim Mercer wrote:
> >this is not so much an enhancement, but a correction of what i think the
> >original "password" authentication scheme was supposed to allow.
> 
> Yep it's a correction. pg_shadow shouldn't have been in plaintext in the
> first place.
> 
>  host all 127.0.0.1 255.255.255.255 password 
> should have meant check crypted passwords in pg_shadow.
> 
> Given your suggestion, what happens when someone does an ALTER USER ...
> WITH PASSWORD ....? 
> 
> Might it be too late to do a fix? 

i didn't want to change things too much.  in the case of ALTER USER, the
code would need to encrypt the password beforehand, either inline, or
using a pgsql-contrib crypt() function.  (i have this if you want it)

the fix is for the authentication behaviour, not the adminitrative interface
(ie. ALTER USER).

-- 
[ Jim Mercer        jim@reptiles.org         +1 416 410-5633 ]
[ Now with more and longer words for your reading enjoyment. ]


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "John Gray"
Date:
Subject: Re: Multi-entry indexes (with a view to XPath queries)
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: stuck spin lock with many concurrent users