Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection
Date: 2010-04-07 10:51:52
Message-ID: 1270637512.24910.6695.camel@ebony
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


When there is a specific reject rule, why does the server say

FATAL: no pg_hba.conf entry

That sounds like an administrative error, rather than a specific
decision on the part of an admin to reject the connection. Suggested
message would be

FATAL: connection rejected for host "xxx", user "xxxx", database "xxx"

Clearly needs to be secure. Does the second message give any information
to a would-be hacker than the first? I don't think so, but it certainly
helps an admin work out if they've missed something.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2010-04-07 10:59:42 Re: Quoting in recovery.conf
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2010-04-07 10:31:22 Re: Win32 timezone matching