Re: rolcanlogin vs. the flat password file

From: Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: rolcanlogin vs. the flat password file
Date: 2007-10-15 06:18:33
Message-ID: 47130639.9000600@gmx.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> With the attached patch to not drop nologin roles from the flat password
> file, it acts more sanely:
>
> postgres=# create user foo nologin;
> CREATE ROLE
> postgres=# \c - foo
> Password for user "foo":
> FATAL: password authentication failed for user "foo"
> Previous connection kept
> postgres=# alter user foo password 'foo';
> ALTER ROLE
> postgres=# \c - foo
> Password for user "foo": << correct password entered here
> FATAL: role "foo" is not permitted to log in
> Previous connection kept
>
> Should we just do this, or is it worth working harder?

IMHO this is exactly what we want. It does only offer more information when
you already got authentication right and therefore doesn't open an
information leak.

Not sure about the warning when creating a role with a password but
nologin. Could be useful.

Best Regards
Michael Paesold

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marko Kreen 2007-10-15 07:40:45 Re: Back-patch support for python 2.5?
Previous Message Brendan Jurd 2007-10-15 05:39:35 Re: [HACKERS] quote_literal with NULL