Re: Rejecting weak passwords - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dave Page
Subject Re: Rejecting weak passwords
Date
Msg-id 937d27e10910151102l56f9b76dmebd866f3e5edd4f5@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Rejecting weak passwords  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Rejecting weak passwords  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Rejecting weak passwords  (Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

> OK, so we're in violent agreement here?

From a technical perspective I think we have been for a while. Though
clearly some people disagree with my assertion that putting any form
of policy enforcement in the client is not actually 'enforcement'. I
wonder how many of those folks would implement their website's data
sanitisation in the browser only - but I digress... :-)

> Except for figuring out how
> an API for checking the flag?  Could they just try it with MD5 first
> and then fall back if that say "no MD5"?

That's what I was trying to avoid, as the architecture of pgAdmin
makes that really hard. I know that's not PG's problem, but forcing a
retry is quite an ugly solution anyway, so I was hoping we could come
up with something better.

I suppose in the worst case, I could just have pgAdmin throw the
error, and then add a per-server option to disable password hashing in
the relevant places, but I'd far rather have that automated so it
can't be set unnecessarily.

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:   http://www.enterprisedb.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Rejecting weak passwords
Next
From: David Fetter
Date:
Subject: Re: Could regexp_matches be immutable?