Re: WIP: SCRAM authentication - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Stephen Frost
Subject Re: WIP: SCRAM authentication
Date
Msg-id 20150812203732.GN3685@tamriel.snowman.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WIP: SCRAM authentication  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: WIP: SCRAM authentication  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List 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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6