| From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Victor Wagner <vitus(at)wagner(dot)pp(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol |
| Date: | 2017-01-19 06:32:45 |
| Message-ID: | 20170119063245.GA633066@tornado.leadboat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 02:30:38PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> > The latest versions document this precisely, but I agree with Peter's concern
> > about plain "scram". Suppose it's 2025 and PostgreSQL support SASL mechanisms
> > OAUTHBEARER, SCRAM-SHA-256, SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS, and SCRAM-SHA3-512. What
> > should the pg_hba.conf options look like at that time? I don't think having a
> > single "scram" option fits in such a world.
>
> Sure.
>
> > I see two strategies that fit:
> >
> > 1. Single "sasl" option, with a GUC, similar to ssl_ciphers, controlling the
> > mechanisms to offer.
> > 2. Separate options "scram_sha_256", "scram_sha3_512", "oauthbearer", etc.
>
> Or we could have a sasl option, with a mandatory array of mechanisms
> to define one or more items, so method entries in pg_hba.conf would
> look llke that:
> sasl mechanism=scram_sha_256,scram_sha3_512
I like that.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2017-01-19 06:48:35 | Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2017-01-19 05:15:48 | Re: Declarative partitioning - another take |