On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 02:34:51PM +0800, Lincoln Yeoh wrote:
> At 12:51 AM 26-06-2001 -0400, Jim Mercer wrote:
> >this is not so much an enhancement, but a correction of what i think the
> >original "password" authentication scheme was supposed to allow.
> Yep it's a correction. pg_shadow shouldn't have been in plaintext in the
> first place.
> host all 127.0.0.1 255.255.255.255 password
> should have meant check crypted passwords in pg_shadow.
> Given your suggestion, what happens when someone does an ALTER USER ...
> WITH PASSWORD ....?
> Might it be too late to do a fix?
i didn't want to change things too much. in the case of ALTER USER, the
code would need to encrypt the password beforehand, either inline, or
using a pgsql-contrib crypt() function. (i have this if you want it)
the fix is for the authentication behaviour, not the adminitrative interface
(ie. ALTER USER).
[ Jim Mercer jim(at)reptiles(dot)org +1 416 410-5633 ]
[ Now with more and longer words for your reading enjoyment. ]
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2001-06-26 13:42:11|
|Subject: Re: stuck spin lock with many concurrent users |
|Previous:||From: John Gray||Date: 2001-06-26 11:24:12|
|Subject: Re: Multi-entry indexes (with a view to XPath queries)|