| From: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: psql patch: new host/port |
| Date: | 2005-12-12 12:32:56 |
| Message-ID: | 3120.24.211.165.134.1134390776.squirrel@www.dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Glaesemann said:
>
> On Dec 12, 2005, at 20:33 , Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
>> Michael Glaesemann wrote:
>>> I'm not familiar enough with the psql code to be able to tell, but is
>>> this secure? The pg_hba.conf on the new server is enforced, I assume?
>>
>> You don't need to be familiar with the psql code to know that it would
>> be pretty stupid if client programs could override the server
>> authentication setup.
>
> I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. My point was I'm not familiar enough
> with the code to see if this implementation is secure. I do indeed
> realize that clients bypassing server authentication is a Bad Thing.
>
The patch is to the client only, not even to libpq, so of course no auth
bypass is involved.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-12-12 13:05:12 | Re: pg_relation_size locking |
| Previous Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2005-12-12 12:20:57 | Re: psql patch: new host/port |