Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Rejecting weak passwords

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Rejecting weak passwords
Date: 2009-09-28 14:46:07
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Albe Laurenz wrote:
>> 1) One could have a set of GUCs like min_password_length,
>> min_password_nonchars and similar that everybody
>> could configure. This is not extremely flexible though.
>> 2) Another idea would be a GUC that contains a regular
>> expression that a password may *not* match.
>> Perhaps that's too limiting too.
>> 3) I have also considered a GUC that points to a loadable
>> module that performs the password check if set.

> My vote is for #3, if anything.

Yeah.  I think there is no chance of anything in this vein getting
accepted into core Postgres, if only because everybody will have a
different idea of what it needs to do.  A hook function (no need
for a GUC) would be a reasonable proposal.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2009-09-28 15:05:39
Subject: Re: WIP - syslogger infrastructure changes
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-09-28 14:43:28
Subject: Re: syslog_line_prefix

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group