| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <aht(at)8kdata(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Some thoughts about SCRAM implementation |
| Date: | 2017-04-12 16:42:04 |
| Message-ID: | 20170412164204.GC9812@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom, all,
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> ... which the user can't tell apart from having fat-fingered the password,
> I suppose? Doesn't sound terribly friendly. A report of a certificate
> mismatch is far more likely to lead people to realize there's a MITM.
We might be able to improve on that.
> So this seems more like a hack than like a feature we need so desperately
> as to push it into v10 post-freeze.
Channel binding certainly isn't a 'hack' and is something we should
support, but I agree that it doesn't need to go into v10.
Thanks!
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-04-12 16:51:49 | Re: the need to finish |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-04-12 16:38:22 | Re: Some thoughts about SCRAM implementation |