On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 10:29 AM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> * Bruce Momjian (bruce@momjian.us) wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 10:09:31AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > I'm not sure that it's quite so simple. Perhaps we should also drop
> > > LDAP and I don't really think PAM was ever terribly good for us to have,
> > > but at least PAM and RADIUS could possibly be used with OTP solutions
> > > (and maybe LDAP? Not sure, don't think I've seen that but perhaps..),
> > > rendering sniffing of what's transmitted less valuable. We don't
> > > support that for 'password' itself or for 'md5' in any serious way
> > > though.
> >
> > I thought all the plain-password methods were already using SSL
> > (hopefully with certificate authentication) and they were therefore
> > safe. Why would we remove something like LDAP if that is what the site
> > is already using?
>
> We don't require SSL to be used with them..? Further, as already
> discussed on this thread, SSL only helps with on-the-wire, doesn't
> address the risk of a compromised server. LDAP, in particular, is
> terrible in this regard because it's a centralized password system,
> meaning that one compromised server will lead to an attacker gaining
> full access to the victim's account throughout the enterprise.
I want to add support for the deprecation move, and I think/hope that
my multi-password patchset can help make the transition less painful.
I also want to throw out another existing issue with MD5, namely that
the salt as the role is fundamentally problematic, even outside of
trivial pass-the-hash attacks one could build a rainbow table today
that uses 'postgres' as the salt, and get admin credentials that can
be used for password stuffing attacks against other enterprise assets.
This means PG is actively enabling lateral movement through enterprise
systems if MD5 passwords are used.
