Re: Successor of MD5 authentication, let's use SCRAM

From: Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>, John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Successor of MD5 authentication, let's use SCRAM
Date: 2012-10-14 03:59:51
Message-ID: CAAZKuFaTJDdQqecB=ZuRNp9+6eGNKRZuJoCkNoM__LV9CFb2RQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 7:00 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> Does Debian they create a self-signed certificate? If so, count me as
> unimpressed. I'd argue that's worse than doing nothing. Here's what the docs
> say (rightly) about such certificates:

Debian will give you a self signed certificate by default. Protecting
against passive eavesdroppers is not an inconsiderable benefit to get
for "free", and definitely not a marginal attack technique: it's
probably the most common.

For what they can possibly know about the end user, Debian has it right here.

--
fdr

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2012-10-14 04:26:26 Re: pg_stat_lwlocks view - lwlocks statistics, round 2
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2012-10-14 02:46:04 Re: parallel pg_dump