Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password
Date
Msg-id 6425.1489506016@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password  (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password  (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
> On 03/14/2017 03:15 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> If the server isn't set up to do SCRAM authentication, i.e. there are no
>> "scram" entries in pg_hba.conf, and you set yourself a SCRAM verifier,
>> you have just locked yourself out of the system. I think that's a
>> non-starter. There needs to be some more intelligence in the decision.

> Yes, this was exactly my concern.

This seems like a serious usability fail.


>> It would be a lot more sensible, if there was a way to specify in
>> pg_hba.conf, "scram-or-md5". We punted on that for PostgreSQL 10, but
>> perhaps we should try to cram that in, after all.

> I was also thinking about that. Basically a primary method and a
> fallback. If that were the case, a gradual transition could happen, and
> if we want \password to enforce best practice it would be ok.

Why exactly would anyone want "md5 only"?  I should think that "scram
only" is a sensible pg_hba setting, if the DBA feels that md5 is too
insecure, but I do not see the point of "md5 only" in 2017.  I think
we should just start interpreting that as "md5 or better".
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Surafel Temesgen
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] New CORRESPONDING clause design
Next
From: David Steele
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Configurable file mode mask