From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Weak passwords and brute force attacks |
Date: | 2006-12-05 16:32:40 |
Message-ID: | 5684.1165336360@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> .... Instead, what we do is add up the different
> character types (lower, upper, digits, etc) and for each character type
> missing, we reduce the hypothetical password length: the theory being that
> the longer the password, the harder to guess.
Where did you get this design for a password strength checker?
It doesn't sound like it has much to do with the algorithms commonly
used for such things.
> Now, in the presence of encrypted passwords being sent across the wire, we
> can't do anything. So, we export the password strength tester to libpq.
As already noted, that seems approximately useless.
> The second mechanism is the delay on authentication failure. The problem
> here is that a distributed application could attempt to brute force guess
> a password for a role. This could be fairly effective on a high speed LAN.
> So, the usual approach is to delay sending the failure message to the
> client for some period of time (specified in the patch by
> auth_failure_delay) to slow the progress of the password guesser.
This is a waste of effort, unless you propose to put the delay into both
the success and failure paths, which hardly seems acceptable. Otherwise
a guesser need only abandon the connection attempt after X microseconds
and try another password.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-05 16:45:04 | Re: old synchronized scan patch |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-05 16:25:20 | Re: FAQ refresh |