[HACKERS] On-disk format of SCRAM verifiers - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Heikki Linnakangas
Subject [HACKERS] On-disk format of SCRAM verifiers
Date
Msg-id 351ba574-85ea-d9b8-9689-8c928dd0955d@iki.fi
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: [HACKERS] On-disk format of SCRAM verifiers  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Re: [HACKERS] On-disk format of SCRAM verifiers  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
The current format for SCRAM verifiers in pg_authid is:

scram-sha-256:<salt>:<iteration count>:<StoredKey>:<ServerKey>

While reviewing Michael's patch to change that so that StoredKey and 
ServerKey are stored base64-encoded, rather than hex-encoded as they are 
currently [1], I looked again at RFC 5803. RFC 5803 specifies the format 
to use when storing SCRAM verifiers in LDAP. I looked at it earlier, and 
it was a source of inspiration for the current format, but I didn't 
think that it was directly applicable. I thought that in RFC 5803 the 
different fields were stored as separate fields or attributes, not as a 
single string.

But looking more closely, I think I misunderstood RFC 5803. It *does* in 
fact specify a single string format to store the verifier in. And the 
format looks like:

SCRAM-SHA-256$<iteration count>:<salt>$<StoredKey>:<ServerKey>

Alternating '$' and ':' as the separators seems a bit wonky, but it 
actually makes sense. "<iteration count>:<salt>" is treated as one 
field, and "<StoredKey>:<ServerKey>" is treated as another, which is 
logical, since the iteration count and salt are sent together to the 
client in the SCRAM challenge, while StoredKey and ServerKey must be 
kept secret.

I think we should adopt that exact format, so that our verifiers are 
compatible with RFC 5803. It doesn't make any immediate difference, but 
since there is a standard out there, might as well follow it. And just 
in case we get support for looking up SCRAM verifiers from an LDAP 
server in the future, it will come handy as we won't need to parse two 
different formats.

Barring objections, I'll go change our on-disk format for SCRAM 
verifiers to follow RFC 5803.

[1] 
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqSbsCBCxy8-DtwzRxYgTnbGUtY4uFEkLQhG%3DR%3Duo%3Dg8Fw%40mail.gmail.com

- Heikki



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Interval for launching the table sync worker
Next
From: Egor Rogov
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] Triggers and logical replication (10devel)