| From: | Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [oauth] Split and extend PGOAUTHDEBUG |
| Date: | 2026-04-01 21:12:58 |
| Message-ID: | CAN4CZFOe5P9ZQbxKXJTnJYDF8bpnMGThyQw9QzCffTEZ=MqKvw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> OAUTHDEBUG_LEGACY_UNSAFE?
That sounds better
> I think I'm missing something; how does the choice of .c/.h change
> things? There's no static tracking in v1 of the patchset
Eh, sorry about that, I was sure that I sent a version which handled
that to the list, but apparently I didn't. It didn't use
atomics/mutexes, so maybe it's better.
> `UNSAFE` is intended to be a weak defense against social engineering
> attacks. So these warnings need to be translated, if possible, and we
> should not provide instructions on how to defeat that defense.
With the same logic, shouldn't we print a very visible warning when
somebody enables trace? Since it's a long output, maybe to both the
beginning and end of the flow?
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| nocfbot-tracewarning.diff | application/octet-stream | 1.1 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2026-04-01 21:21:13 | Re: Introduce XID age based replication slot invalidation |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2026-04-01 20:20:10 | Re: [PROPOSAL] Termination of Background Workers for ALTER/DROP DATABASE |