| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Add "password_protocol" connection parameter to libpq |
| Date: | 2019-08-11 19:56:50 |
| Message-ID: | d57d3b74-be26-af08-956a-b095fd431a41@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-08-11 21:46, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> On 8/11/19 1:00 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 2019-08-09 23:56, Jeff Davis wrote:
>>> 1. Hierarchical semantics, where you specify the least-secure
>>> acceptable method:
>>>
>>> password_protocol = {any,md5,scram-sha-256,scram-sha-256-plus}
>>
>> What would the hierarchy be if scram-sha-512 and scram-sha-512-plus are
>> added?
>
> password_protocol =
> {any,md5,scram-sha-256,scram-sha-512,scram-sha-256-plus,scram-sha-512-plus}?
>
> I'd put one length of digest over another, but I'd still rank a method
> that uses channel binding has more protections than one that does not.
Sure, but the opposite opinion is also possible.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-08-11 19:59:06 | Re: Regression test failure in regression test temp.sql |
| Previous Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2019-08-11 19:46:46 | Re: Add "password_protocol" connection parameter to libpq |