| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SCRAM authentication, take three |
| Date: | 2017-04-07 16:59:17 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa3krDpm8AihBi69A7Ju0Nt_JBdej9n4sC3J6MoG63w-g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> I think the "SCRAM" part is more important than "SHA-256", so -1 on that.
I agree. The point here isn't that we're using a better hashing
method, even if a lot of people *think* that's the point. The point
is we're using a modern algorithm that has nice properties like "you
can't impersonate the client by steeling the verifier, or even by
snooping the exchange".
But "sasl" might be even better.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2017-04-07 17:10:50 | Re: recent deadlock regression test failures |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2017-04-07 16:58:07 | pgbench --progress-timestamp no longer works correctly |