Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection

Joshua Tolley wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 01:07:21PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > > Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > >> When there is a specific reject rule, why does the server say
> > >> FATAL: ?no pg_hba.conf entry
> > >
> > > It's intentional. ?We try to expose the minimum amount of knowledge
> > > about the contents of pg_hba.conf to potential attackers.
> >
> > The problem with the message is not that it's uninformative, but that
> > it's counterfactual.
> >
> > ...Robert
>
> I agree (I noticed and was bothered by this today, as a matter of irrelevant
> fact). I can support the idea of exposing as little as possible of
> pg_hba.conf, but ISTM the "no pg_hba.conf entry" is exposing too much, by that
> standard. Just say something like "connection disallowed" and leave it at that
> -- either it's disallowed by lack of a rule, or by existence of a "reject"
> rule, or by something else entirely. As long as the message isn't clearly
> wrong in the "reject" case, as it is now.

Did we come to any conclusion on this?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com