| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Albe Laurenz" <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "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: | 2009-09-28 15:38:45 |
| Message-ID: | 1403.1254152325@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Albe Laurenz" <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Actually there's a much bigger problem with asking the backend to reject
>> weak passwords: what ya gonna do with a pre-MD5'd string? Which is
>> exactly what the backend is going to always get, in a security-conscious
>> environment.
> I'm thinking of the case where somebody changes his or her
> password interactively on the command line, with pgAdmin III,
> or similar. People would hardly use the above in that case,
Really? If pgAdmin has a password-change function that doesn't use
client-side password encryption then somebody should file a bug against
it. Sending unencrypted passwords exposes the password at least to the
postmaster logfile. createuser has been doing encryption, unless
specifically commanded not to, for a long time.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2009-09-28 15:48:21 | Re: Rejecting weak passwords |
| Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2009-09-28 15:31:59 | Re: Using results from INSERT ... RETURNING |