Re: scram and \password

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: scram and \password
Date: 2017-03-14 15:40:16
Message-ID: 6425.1489506016@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> On 03/14/2017 03:15 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> If the server isn't set up to do SCRAM authentication, i.e. there are no
>> "scram" entries in pg_hba.conf, and you set yourself a SCRAM verifier,
>> you have just locked yourself out of the system. I think that's a
>> non-starter. There needs to be some more intelligence in the decision.

> Yes, this was exactly my concern.

This seems like a serious usability fail.

>> It would be a lot more sensible, if there was a way to specify in
>> pg_hba.conf, "scram-or-md5". We punted on that for PostgreSQL 10, but
>> perhaps we should try to cram that in, after all.

> I was also thinking about that. Basically a primary method and a
> fallback. If that were the case, a gradual transition could happen, and
> if we want \password to enforce best practice it would be ok.

Why exactly would anyone want "md5 only"? I should think that "scram
only" is a sensible pg_hba setting, if the DBA feels that md5 is too
insecure, but I do not see the point of "md5 only" in 2017. I think
we should just start interpreting that as "md5 or better".

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Steele 2017-03-14 15:42:23 Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask
Previous Message Surafel Temesgen 2017-03-14 15:33:08 Re: New CORRESPONDING clause design