Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords
Date: 2001-08-16 13:38:08
Message-ID: 9419.997969088@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> OK, patch attached. Pretty nifty. Try MD5 first, and if it fails, try
> crypt.

What???

Where did *that* idea come from? If I'm using the new auth method
because I don't think the old one is secure, I sure as heck don't want
an old (or deliberately-broken) client to cause a fallback to a less
secure method.

If MD5 is specified in the config file, and the client doesn't support
it, then you *fail*. Full stop.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-08-16 13:43:17 Re: Re: Proposal for encrypting pg_shadow passwords
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2001-08-16 13:29:39 Re: Patch for JDBC to update some comments