| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
| Cc: | 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 <mlortiz(at)uci(dot)cu>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Rejecting weak passwords |
| Date: | 2009-10-14 15:11:55 |
| Message-ID: | 13579.1255533115@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
> I would suggest that in addition to the proposed plugin, we add an
> suset GUC (defaulting to OFF) which rejects any use of WITH ENCRYPTED
> PASSWORD to ensure that the password complexity can be checked when
> roles are created or modified.
That's going to stop us from being beat up? A GUC that forcibly
*weakens* security? I can't see it.
If you're really intent on making that happen, you can have your
password checker plugin reject crypted passwords; we don't need
such a questionable rule in core.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-10-14 15:22:43 | Re: Rejecting weak passwords |
| Previous Message | Roger Leigh | 2009-10-14 14:59:00 | Re: Unicode UTF-8 table formatting for psql text output |