Greetings,
* Christoph Berg (myon@debian.org) wrote:
> Re: Stephen Frost
> > postgresql.conf alone, but ultimately that's probably going to be up to
> > what Christoph is comfortable with.
>
> Re: Stephen Frost
> > If you leave it as 'md5' in pg_hba.conf, then *that* will do either md5,
> > or scram. If you have 'scram-sha-256' in pg_hba.conf and only an 'md5'
> > password then it breaks.
>
> Fwiw "comfortable" and "it breaks" are the problem here. The whole
> picture is so utterly complicated that I'm still scared from reading
> the docs the first time around the time PG10 came about. In trainings
> I'm still telling people that md5 is the accepted standard because
> there's enough more interesting things to teach about PostgreSQL.
Ah, well, in trainings and talks I'm pushing to completely get rid of
md5 and to only accept using scram. :)
> Why do I have to decide *in pg_hba.conf* which hash algorithm is used?
Where else would you decide..?
> Why can't that just be "password"?
What would that mean?
> The password_encryption GUC should be the only place concerned with
> that, and it should only be used for new passwords. Existing passwords
> should just continue to work. *That* would allow seamless upgrades.
Sure, that'd be nice, but that isn't how it is today. I argued for
similar during the scram implementation but not what ultimately ended up
happening.
> Getting this mess fixed would be good for security because then people
> will likely start using scram.
That's certainly true, though I hope we can convince people to use SCRAM
even given the modest effort required.
The point here though, really, is that *new* installations of PG have
very little reason to not use SCRAM. The question on upgrades is
different, but that can be addressed with pg_upgradecluster, I would
think, without much trouble.
Thanks,
Stephen
