Re: Patch to include PAM support...

> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> Because (a) it greatly increases the scope of the vulnerability,
>
> > How? It is just a new authentication method with the same problems as
> > our current ones.
>
> No, it is not *a* new authentication method, it is an open interface
> that could be plugged into almost anything. We need the top-level
> postmaster process to be absolutely reliable; plugging into "almost
> anything" is not conducive to reliability.

But isn't that the responsibility of the administrator? They are
already responsible for the IDENT servers they use. Isn't this the same
thing.

> Besides, an hour ago you were ready to reject this patch for lack of
> interest. Why are you suddenly so eager to ignore the risks and apply
> it anyway?

Because some have now said they want it and I do not see the _new_ risks.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026