| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Possible to store invalid SCRAM-SHA-256 Passwords |
| Date: | 2019-04-22 13:42:34 |
| Message-ID: | 3033.1555940554@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 04:12:56PM -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>> I modified the "get_password_type" function to perform a SCRAM
>> verification to see if it is a properly hashed SCRAM password. If it is,
>> we treat the password as a SCRAM hashed one. Otherwise, we proceed to
>> the next step, which is to treat it as a plainly stored one.
> Any objections to back-patch that stuff to v10?
Patch looks OK as far as it goes, but ISTM it raises an obvious
question: shouldn't the immediately-preceding test to see if a
password is MD5 also be trying harder? Currently it only checks
the length, but verifying that the rest is valid hex data would
go far towards preventing the same set of problems for MD5.
You might argue that MD5 is deprecated and we shouldn't expend
any effort on it, but a simple strspn check would only require
about one more line ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2019-04-22 13:52:15 | Re: Possible to store invalid SCRAM-SHA-256 Passwords |
| Previous Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2019-04-22 13:04:43 | Re: Possible to store invalid SCRAM-SHA-256 Passwords |