Tom Lane wrote:
>Devrim GUNDUZ <devrim(at)tr(dot)net> writes:
>>I had no time to search throug the code; but as far as I understood, it
>>*attacks* the database servers with TCP/IP on, right?
>No, the program itself simply takes an MD5 hash value and does a
>brute-force search for a password that generates that MD5 string.
>The comments at the top suggest sniffing a Postgres session startup
>exchange in order to see the MD5 value that the user presents; which the
>attacker would then give to this program. (Forget it if the session is
>Unix-local rather than TCP, or if it's SSL-encrypted...)
>This is certainly a theoretically possible attack against someone who
>has no clue about security, but I don't put any stock in it as a
>practical attack. For starters, if you are talking to your database
>across a network that is open to hostile sniffers, you should definitely
>be using SSL.
This is absolutely correct, shouldn't this be in the FAQ?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tatsuo Ishii||Date: 2003-01-01 23:06:05|
|Subject: Re: Postgresql, unicode and umlauts|
|Previous:||From: Stephan Szabo||Date: 2003-01-01 21:47:34|
|Subject: Re: Bug in pg_get_constraintdef (for deferrable constraints)|