Re: Bugtraq: Having Fun With PostgreSQL - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: Bugtraq: Having Fun With PostgreSQL
Date
Msg-id 467D46DF.5020406@hagander.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Bugtraq: Having Fun With PostgreSQL  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Bugtraq: Having Fun With PostgreSQL  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Bugtraq: Having Fun With PostgreSQL  (Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>>> One thing I've thought about doing is to remove the default in initdb
>>> completely and *force* the user to choose auth type. Packagers can
>>> then just use that to set ident or whatever. and interactive users
>>> can pick trust if they really need it, but it will be a known choice.
> 
>> Since nobody comemnted on this, let me turn it around and ask: Does
>> anybody have any reason *not* to do this?
> 
> I'll object if no one else does: this will break existing installation
> habits and processes to no real benefit.

The benefit would be that PostgreSQL would be "secure by default". Which
we are *not* today.

As a comparison, that's been one of the most common complaints against
Windows earlier - stuff is installed and enabled by default, and only if
you already know the system do you know that you should disable it. The
same thing applies here - if you don't already know how PostgreSQL
works, you will by default install a database that's completely without
authentication.

//Magnus


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Bugtraq: Having Fun With PostgreSQL
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Bugtraq: Having Fun With PostgreSQL