Re: [HACKERS] Implementation of SASLprep for SCRAM-SHA-256 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Implementation of SASLprep for SCRAM-SHA-256
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoaCPffE4HWVLzgfRiJnyL8z-vfY1wY-k21jX5TTetXJLA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to [HACKERS] Implementation of SASLprep for SCRAM-SHA-256  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Implementation of SASLprep for SCRAM-SHA-256  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> RFC5802 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5802) regarding the
> implementation of SCRAM, needs to have passwords normalized as per
> RFC4013 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4013) using SASLprep, which is
> actually NFKC. I have previously described what happens in this case
> here:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqScgwh6Eu4=c-0L7-cufZrU5rULTSdpMOOWiz1YFvGE6w@mail.gmail.com
> This way, we can be sure that two UTf-8 strings are considered as
> equivalent in a SASL exchange, in our case we care about the password
> string (we should care about the username as well). Without SASLprep,
> our implementation of SCRAM may fail with other third-part tools if
> passwords are not made only of ASCII characters. And that sucks.

Agreed.  I am not sure this quite rises to the level of a stop-ship
issue; we could document the restriction.  However, that's pretty
ugly; it would be a whole lot better to get this fixed.

I kinda hope Heikki is going to step up to the plate here, because I
think he understands most of it already.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Partitioned tables and relfilenode
Next
From: Andrew Gierth
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Hash support for grouping sets