Re: change password_encryption default to scram-sha-256? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dave Cramer
Subject Re: change password_encryption default to scram-sha-256?
Date
Msg-id CADK3HHKUyuOYCSY7WAmqLJz4m37qcuyu9CTAr1a782+RbYvLJA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: change password_encryption default to scram-sha-256?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: change password_encryption default to scram-sha-256?
List pgsql-hackers


On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 at 16:38, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com> writes:
>> If someone installs a postgres RPM/DEB from postgresql.org, they could
>> also install postgresql-jdbc, right ?

> I would guess there might be some distro specific java apps that might
> actually use what is on the machine but as mentioned any reasonably complex
> Java app is going to ensure it has the correct versions for their app using
> Maven.

I'm not really sure if that makes things better or worse.  If some app
thinks that it needs version N of the driver, but SCRAM support was
added in version N-plus-something, how tough is it going to be to get
it updated?  And are you going to have to go through that dance for
each app separately?



I see the problem you are contemplating, but even installing a newer version of the driver has it's perils (we have been known to break some expectations in the name of the spec). 
So I could see a situation where there is a legacy app that wants to use SCRAM. They update the JDBC jar on the system and due to the "new and improved" version their app breaks. 
Honestly I don't have a solution to this.

That said 42.2.0 was released in January 2018, so by PG13 it's going to be 4 years old. 

Dave

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Trailing whitespaces in various documentations
Next
From: Jose Luis Tallon
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Implement uuid_version()