| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: scram and \password |
| Date: | 2017-03-14 16:08:19 |
| Message-ID: | e794673a-c7ef-3dbc-1fd2-451660ced99a@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 03/14/2017 08:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
>> On 03/14/2017 03:15 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> It would be a lot more sensible, if there was a way to specify in
>>> pg_hba.conf, "scram-or-md5". We punted on that for PostgreSQL 10, but
>>> perhaps we should try to cram that in, after all.
>
>> I was also thinking about that. Basically a primary method and a
>> fallback. If that were the case, a gradual transition could happen, and
>> if we want \password to enforce best practice it would be ok.
>
> Why exactly would anyone want "md5 only"? I should think that "scram
> only" is a sensible pg_hba setting, if the DBA feels that md5 is too
> insecure, but I do not see the point of "md5 only" in 2017. I think
> we should just start interpreting that as "md5 or better".
That certainly would work for me.
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2017-03-14 16:12:24 | Re: Logical replication existing data copy |
| Previous Message | David Steele | 2017-03-14 15:42:23 | Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask |