| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, marcin mank <marcin(dot)mank(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, mlortiz(at)uci(dot)cu, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Rejecting weak passwords |
| Date: | 2009-09-29 11:43:05 |
| Message-ID: | 1254224585.28005.15.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 15:59 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 15:52 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > > It takes about 32 hours to brute force all passwords from [a-zA-Z0-9]
> > > of up to 8 chars in length.
> >
> > That would be a reason to limit the number of failed connection attempts
> > from a single source, then, rather than a reason to change the hash
> > function.
> >
> > Hmmm, that would be a useful, easy (I think) security feature: add a GUC
> > for failed_logins_allowed.
>
> Why a GUC, can't we just use ALTER ROLE (or ALTER DATABASE)?
If you make it a GUC, you get those for free. (That's what the "U"
means.)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2009-09-29 12:38:52 | Re: Small patch for README |
| Previous Message | Bernd Helmle | 2009-09-29 11:19:50 | Re: TODO item: Allow more complex user/database default GUC settings |