Re: Rejecting weak passwords - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Rejecting weak passwords
Date
Msg-id 200910161529.n9GFTol04475@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Rejecting weak passwords  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Rejecting weak passwords
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > If we were using some kind of real public key system and someone
> > suggested breaking it to add password complexity checking, I would
> > understand the outrage here.  But I don't understand why everyone is
> > so worked up about having an *optional* *flag* to force plaintext
> > instead of MD5.  I might be wrong here, but can't a determined
> > attacker brute-force an MD5 anyway?  The very fact that people are
> > suggesting that password checking might be feasible even on a
> > pre-MD5'd password by using a dictionary suggests that we're not
> > getting a whole lot of real security here.  And even if not, dude,
> > it's an *optional* *flag*.
> 
> Yes, and it's an optional flag that could perfectly well be implemented
> in the plugin that I think we do have consensus to add a hook for.
> The argument is over why do we need to litter the core system with it.

So, are we agreed to provide a hook on the server side, but to use it
you have to configure your system with SSL and 'password'?  I can add
that to the TODO list.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Encoding issues in console and eventlog on win32
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Rejecting weak passwords