Re: Enhancements to passwordcheck

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Enhancements to passwordcheck
Date: 2017-09-27 22:59:43
Message-ID: CAB7nPqSxUUXLggijB=bY=iyZqocdEv=W3u9wZMc3CweLQhFEzQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:06 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> I think a password strength check must live at the end that does the
> encryption -- something like in psql when you do the \password command,
> *before* the encrypted password is sent to the server. Then you can do
> all sort of stuff (... except check for password history).
>
> I think the passwordcheck module as a whole is a dead end, security-
> wise. Myself, I've never seen the point in it. It runs at the wrong
> time, and there's no way to fix that.

Client commands may be run on a trusted network as well, let's not
forget that. But I definitely agree that this is bad practice in
general to not hash passwords beforehand. Another thing that
passwordcheck is good at is being an example of hook use. I would
think that many people refer to it when implementing their own module
for whatever they want.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2017-09-27 23:15:37 Re: SendRowDescriptionMessage() is slow for queries with a lot of columns
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2017-09-27 22:59:06 Re: bgw_type (was Re: Why does logical replication launcher set application_name?)